r 



<CCCC 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



«ljap. Z355M 



■No. 






g CXITED STATES OF AMERICA.* 












C<r<T" 



» 






c<? « 






4 *• 



UK c 






^// c" «:'/ 



c a -co. 

C ra<£< 

c ro «£< 
( €( <T< 

$$m cm 



C<C'< 



<L C ( ( 


< cc . < 


< <r c ' i 


l cc ( 
x ai( it;, 


rCC( 


igC(X ''<<<'( 


^'Cd T.( 


c<& 


<6£C? I 





, €& 






(if? „; c c . c * c 

% c «2 mktcc^ 









L ; : « 



M 



CC 7 <CC 



cCL' 



SACRED PHILOLOGY 



INTERPRETATION. 



West.& Trow, Printers. 



xLri 



INTRODUCTION 



SACRED PHILOLOGY 



INTERPRETATION, 



£1 

DR. G. J. PLANCK 



TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, 



ENLARGED WITH NOTlffc 



SAMUEL H. TURNER, D. D. 

Prof, of Bib. Lit. and Interp. of Scrip, in the Theol. Sem. of the Prot. Epis. Church, and of the 
Heb. Lan. and Lit. in Colum. Col, New- York. 



NEW- YORK: 

LEAVITT, LORD & CO., 182 BROADWAY. 
BOSTON :-CROCKER & BREWSTER. 

1834. 



Av i • ;• 






Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1834, by 
Samuel H. Turner, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the 
Southern District of New- York. 



PREFACE 



The author of the work now presented to 
the American public, is principally distin- 
guished in his native country for his numerous 
writings on Ecclesiastical History. The fol- 
lowing translation is a small part of his large 
and valuable introduction to theological lite- 
rature in general. The subject of it is sacred 
philology and interpretation. The transla- 
tor is induced to publish it, in the hope that 
it may facilitate the pursuit of these studies 
to young men preparing for the ministry, and 
may also be acceptable to men of intelligence 
generally, who comprise within the circle of 
their literary reading those topics which are 
connected with a fundamental knowledge of 
the Bible. The want of some general work 
on these two points has often been felt by 



PREFACE. 



him, while endeavoring to direct the Biblical 
studies of candidates for the ministry ; and, 
upon reading the introduction of Dr. Planck 
he resolved to translate those sections which 
relate to philology and interpretation, and to 
add such notes as the nature of the subject 
appeared to require. Young men, just enter- 
ing on a course of critical and exegetical 
study, feel the want of some small work, 
which shall lay before them a general view 
of these subjects, presenting in a clear light 
fundamental principles, directing their atten- 
tion to the more important topics, and point- 
ing out the sources from which more extended 
information may be derived. The manual 
now offered to the reader is not, in all re- 
spects, such an one as the writer could wish, 
Composed forty years ago, and with particu- 
lar reference to the state of learning then 
subsisting in the author's native land, it 
might reasonably be expected that additions 
would occasionally be necessary, in order to 
adapt the book in some degree to our own 



PREFACE. 



| age and country. The reader will find some 
j additions of this kind in the accompanying 
: notes. 

In adding to the literary notices of the 
several subjects presented in the course of the 
work, the intention was, to select such books 
as a student may read or refer to with most 
advantage. To append a list of all the publi- 
cations which have appeared since the au- 
thor's age, would have required a volume. 
The effect also would be to disgust the reader 
by a display of literature, rather than to 
allure him to the study of philology and inter- 
pretation, by introducing him to a few able 
and attractive guides. 

When books in German are mentioned, I 
have endeavored to put the English reader in 
possession of the subject of them, by a trans- 
lation. 

The duty of studying the Bible in the 
Hebrew and Greek originals is now more 
generally recognized by students of theology 
than it was a few years since. The Protes- 



PREFACE. 



tant principle, which subjects every theologi- 
cal opinion to the test of scripture, evidently 
requires the candidate for the ministry to 
prepare himself for the office of a religious 
instructor by such a method of study, unless 
peculiar circumstances should make it im- 
practicable for him to do so. The policy of 
such a course is also equally evident. For, 
although in the outset, the advancement of 
the student may be slow, yet in the end the 
acquisitions which he will make are not only 
more solid, but more extensive, than can be 
gained by pursuing any other method. If 
this little work shall contribute to aid the 
student in his progress, or excite him to in- 
dustry in the pursuit, the translator will feel 
that the time which he has devoted to it has 
not been uselessly spent. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER, 



BY THE TRANS1ATOK. 



With the view of giving the reader a clear im- 
pression of the design and plan of the author, I prefix 
this preliminary chapter, which contains an outline of 
those parts of Dr. Planck's introduction which precede 
the translated chapters. 

The author begins by remarking, that the changes 
which have aifected theological literamre, in common 
with other branches of knowledge, require a correspon- 
dent change in the method of pursuing it, and conse- 
quently new and additional directions in order to study 
it to the best advantage. To furnish such directions, 
adapted to the improved state of science and literature 
of his own age, is the design of his work. 

But from the very nature of an introduction it must 

be evident, that it does not profess to instruct the reader 

in the whole science of theology. It can only present 

to his mind a view of its outlines, assist him in filling 

up the picUire, and present it to his eye in attractive 

colors. It must give him clear ideas of its object, and 

design, and also of its general form and character, so far 

as these can be determined by means of the others. It 

must show the mutual connexion of the different parts 

1 



D INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

of each branch, and also that in which the whole sub- 
ject stands to learning in general. It must point out 
the most direct and the best method for a successful pro- 
secution of the study, develop the sources of informa- 
tion relating to it, and give a history of its literature. 

Here it is to be particularly observed, that an intro- 
duction to theology is not to be an introduction to any 
one particular system. It is not its object to place the 
student in a situation, from which he will be able to 
take only a partial view of the truths to which he 
is to be conducted, or, to see them only in one particular 
direction. The impropriety and dishonesty of such a 
course are evident. Its object is — and this is the only 
method by which the cause of truth and learning can 
be advanced — to place him in a condition to examine 
every thing for himself with unprejudiced impartiality ; 
to teach him how to form a judgment respecting the 
materials which the subject presents to him, a judgment 
founded upon a faithful and complete representation of 
whatever ought in reason to have influence. Nothing 
but this can form the theologian who thinks for himself, 
and any other kind it is not desirable to form. 

An introduction to theology must carefully avoid 
whatever may be regarded as mere learned form. What- 
ever information it has to communicate, it must endea- 
vor to lay before the reader in such a manner, that a 
sound understanding can readily comprehend it without 
the aid of a learned apparatus. Otherwise it will be of 
little utility to one who is entering upon the study of 
divinity, for whom it is principally intended, or to gene- 
ral readers. For the same reason, it should avoid a 
show of literature. This is undoubtedly one of th 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 7 

worst errors, into which an introduction to any depart- 
ment of learning can fall. Nothing is more alarming 
to a beginner than a long catalogue of literary works, 
with which he is to become acquainted ; and if it should 
not alarm him, it will certainly discourage him from 
attempting to use them, through despair of being able 
to master the whole. An introduction should limit 
itself to such works as are of most utility and impor- 
tance, and to such as have constituted epochs in the 
history of the literature belonging to the subject. 

With these views the author proceeds to state the 
plan of his work. It consists of three sections. The 
first is devoted to a development and illustration of the 
general ideas by which the object, design and compass 
of the whole science are marked out. The second 
examines the connexion of theology with those other 
branches of literature, from which it must derive 
preliminary knowledge, or is able to borrow assistance. 
The third and last, which is unavoidably the most com- 
prehensive, relates to theology itself in its various 
departments. 

In pursuing the outline, I shall be as brief as possi- 
ble, marking out the divisions of the original into 
sections and chapters. 

SECTION i. 

Chap. I. II. Theology is the science of religion ; 
the learned knowledge of those doctrines and truths, 
which instruct us in our relations to God, in the duties 
which we owe him resulting from those relations, and 
in the hopes which we may venture to build thereon. 
Christian theology is founded upon a divine revelation. 



8 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

It has for its object those doctrines which have been com- 
municated from God, by Christ and through his instruc- 
tion, and which, consequently, were not discoverable 
merely by the usual methods of ascertaining truth in all 
other departments of knowledge, but by means of a 
divine arrangement altogether extraordinary, The in- 
ternal character of the truths themselves, and the exter- 
nal importance attached to them in consequence of their 
origin, demand the conclusion that they are far superior 
to the objects of all other sciences. 

III. IV. If now it be allowed that these truths 
are the most weighty, and the design in reference to 
which they are to be studied, the greatest, the most 
interesting, and the most worthy of exertion, it evi- 
dently follows that they are deserving of the utmost 
degree of attention. They are the foundation of our 
happiness, the security of our hopes, and consequently 
must be settled upon the firmest basis, upon grounds on 
which we may rely with confidence. And how is this 
to be done ? Only by placing ourselves in a condition 
to examine those grounds and to try their character, 
and thus to arrive at conviction in our own minds ; in 
other words, by making our knowledge of these sub- 
jects a learned knowledge. This point the author pro- 
ceeds to discuss, obviating the usual objections brought 
against learning in connexion with theology, and 
remarking 1 that all the errors and heresies which have 
distracted the church, may be traced to causes very dif- 
ferent from learning. In a multitude of instances they 
have arisen and spread, not because their authors and 
abettors were learned, but because they were not 

LEARNED ENOUGH. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 9 

V. VI. VII. The next point examined relates to 
the qualifications which are necessary for the study of 
theology. It requires the same mental endowments 
which are called for in cultivating any other science . 
an ability to comprehend, connect and compare abstract 
ideas— such a degree of discrimination as is sufficient 
to enable a man to judge of the characteristics of truth 
and falsehood, and to separate the one from the other — 
a perception of truth, not innate, but acquired by men- 
tal discipline — and a memory sufficiently clear to call 
up the knowledge required for daily use, without con- 
fusion or error. It is true indeed, that the want of 
these qualifications in a considerable degree cannot be 
regarded as a sufficient reason for deterring a man 
from the study of theology, provided he have no other 
view but to examine the subject for his own satisfac- 
tion, although the knowledge he may be able to acquire 
must be proportionably weak, obscure, and destitute of 
proper arrangement. But the case is different when 
his object is to prepare himself for communicating 
instruction and satisfaction to others. It is but too 
probable that religion may be injured by means of the 
inadequacy of such men ; while, on the other hand, it 
is impossible to say what benefits may result, by the 
direction of Providence, from their efforts, if their 
imperfect knowledge be accompanied by pious zeal. 
How far it may be right and expedient to encourage 
such persons to pursue a course of theological study, 
with the view of becoming ministers of the Gospel, is 
a question which requires the exercise of prudence, 
piety and good sense. General regulations on points 

of this kind, established by legitimate ecclesiastical 
1* 



10 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

authority, are not to be disregarded, in the hope that 
divine Providence will counteract the injurious effects 
which might otherwise result. 

But in addition to mental endowments, moral quali- 
fications are necessary. It is too plain to require evi- 
dence, that the object in view can never be attained, 
unless the soul be animated by a deeply felt principle 
of piety. The inquirer must be guided by religious 
reverence, by humble distrust of his own views, aud by 
habitual recollection of the narrow limits to which the 
powers of his understanding are confined. These 
points it is unnecessary to illustrate. They must 
force themselves upon every one's observation. But 
there are other moral properties, which must be pos- 
sessed and cultivated, in order that the study of theology 
may be pursued with the greatest prospect of success.- 
The author proceeds to state the following. 

In the first place, the student must possess a 
supreme love of truth, free, as far as possible, from 
prejudices, or at least sufficiently influential to enable 
him to sacrifice every prejudice to truth, when dis- 
covered. This will propel him to exertion, and he will 
take all necessary pains to make himself acquainted 
with what God hath revealed, simply for the reason 
that God hath revealed it. 

A second requisition, intimately connected with 
the former, consists of a settled resolution of mind 
not to be terrified by doubts, and in the search after 
truth, not to leave any doubt unexamined. No doubts 
that can be suggested need produce alarm. Either 
they are of such a nature, that a competent and care- 
ful inquirer — and none other is here contemplated — 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 11 

may be able to meet them, and satisfy himself of their 
fallacy ; or else, they are too powerful to be resisted by 
learning and argument, and should therefore be gladly 
admitted as beneficial to the interests of progressive 
truth. 

Lastly, there must be conscientious fidelity in 
adhering to the convictions which the mind has 
received. I do not mean an obstinate stubbornness, 
which will listen to no further arguments, and is 
determined to adhere to principles once adopted, not- 
withstanding the strongest impressions produced by 
more correct views : this is nothing less than bigotry. 
I mean, that the sentiments once embraced, after suffi- 
cient investigation to satisfy the inquirer of their truth, 
ought not to be relinquished until he is satisfied, by 
equally strong and clear evidence, that they are erro- 
neous, and have consequently been hastily or incau- 
tiously adopted. 

VIII — XV. In continuation, the author takes a 
view of the whole study and of the general subjects 
which it comprises. He distributes it into four principal 
departments First; exegetical theology, com- 
prehending apologetic divinity or defence of revealed 
religion, the history and establishment of the canon 
of scripture, and sacred philology with interpretation. 
Second; historic theology, the various divisions 
of which he lays before the reader together with a 
view of its utility. Third ; systematic theology, 
(founded in all its parts upon the Bible,) comprehend- 
ing doctrinal, moral, and symbolic* divinity. The first 

* From crv/i/?oXr;, the symbol or creed of each particular church. 



1^ INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

of these three epithets is intended to mark out the general 
system of Christian doctrine, and the last those particu- 
lar systems which have been embraced by different 
Christian churches respectively. The nature of the 
intermediate is plainly determined by its name. Fourth ; 
applied or PRACTrcAL theology, that is, whatever 
is comprised under the terms, homiletic, catechetical, 
and pastoral theology. He then proceeds to discuss 
the questions, whether the study of all these branches 
is necessary for instructors in religion ; and if so, in 
what measure. He lays down four general directions 
for a proper study of theology, and concludes the sec 
tion by giving some of the principal works in which 
those of a more particular and definite nature may be 
found. 



SECTION II. 

I. II. This section is devoted to a consideration 
of those branches of knowledge, which are preparatory 
and subsidiary to theology. 

The author begins with a knowledge of languages, 
In order to perceive the bearing of this study on the- 
ology, it may be proper first, to take a view of its 
necessity in general. This arises from the three fol- 
lowing considerations. It aids our progress in think- 
ing : — it is necessary in order to enable us to impart 
our thoughts and sentiments to others, — and to make 
their thoughts and opinions useful to ourselves. The 
two last are self-evident, and of course require no illus 
tration. The first may at first view appear to some to 
be paradoxical : but a close examination of the subject 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 13 

will show the truth of this position, that we improve in 
learning to think, in proportion as we improve in learn- 
ing to speak, and therefore that an acquaintance with 
language is as necessary to our own clear and 
comprehensive thinking, as it is to communicate our 
thoughts to others.* Hence, then, it evidently fol- 
lows, that in the study of theology, as in every other 
study, a man who possesses an extensive knowledge of 
languages, will be able to advance with the more 
facility and speed, and will generally attain the most 
secure and complete possession of his object. If a 
certain degree of mental formation and power of judg- 
ment, in other words, of acquired ability to compre- 
hend ideas, to work them up, and connect them 
together, be necessary ; if the total want of this totally 
unfits us for the object in view, the acquisition of it in 
a considerable degree must proportionably qualify us ; 
and if the study of languages promotes this acquisition, 
its utility in the study of theology is not to be ques- 
tioned. The more languages a man understands, the 
better will he be able to pursue this study with success : 
not merely because he has thereby collected more ideas, 
or put himself in a condition to use the ideas of others ; 
but also, because by studying several languages, he 
has enlarged his capacity for receiving ideas and form- 
ing an accurate judgment of them. This is an unde- 
niable truth, founded in the very nature of the soul. 

In addition to the vernacular tongue, the Greek and 
Latin are absolutely necessary in preparing for the 
study of divinity, and some living languages, especially 

* See Note I, at the end 



14 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

the French and English, [German.] highly useful. The 
Hebrew and oriental languages, in general, are not 
properly comprehended within the range of preliminary 
studies ; they constitute a part of the subject itself, and 
shall afterwards be brought into view under the 
head of sacred philology. 

Ill — V. The importance of acquiring an accurate 
and extensive knowledge of our own language, and of 
cultivating the Latin and Greek, as those which con- 
tain the best specimens of composition, and present the 
powers of the human mind in the strongest light, is 
examined and vindicated against some modern objec- 
tions ; and this part of the subject is closed by exhibit- 
ing the claims of the French and English. The 
author then proceeds (VI— XII,) to other preliminary 
and auxiliary branches of knowledge, such as logic, 
metaphysics, natural theology, morals, and history ; 
pointing out the utility and importance of each depart- 
ment. 



SECTION III. 

We now enter upon the third section, which 
includes the largest portion of the work, and is an 
introduction to theology itself. It is divided into three 
parts, exegetical, historical, and systematic theology. 
The first comprehends apologetic divinity, or defence 
of revealed religion and of the scriptures, the history 
of the canon, sacred philology, and interpretation. 
Dr. Planck's observations on the two latter subjects 
are given to the reader in full in the subsequent trans- 
lation; those on the former may be found in the 
following abstract. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 15 

APOLOGETIC DIVINITY. 

I. The design of apologetic divinity is evident 
from the very name. In the nature of things, theology 
must, in the first place, establish its claims to divine 
authority. 

Since this department may very easily be confounded 
with another, it becomes necessary to define with some 
degree of accuracy the great object which it has in 
view. Its attention is directed to the proofs of the 
divinity of our religion, that is to say, of the divine 
origin and divine authority of the doctrine of our 
Lord and his apostles. This is a very different point 
from the inspiration and divinity of the writings in 
which that doctrine is contained, although the differ- 
ence has often been overlooked, and thereby a confu- 
sion of ideas has arisen, which has not been without an 
injurious tendency. The proof of the one is of a very 
different kind from that of the other, and the argu- 
ments which support the divinity of the doctrines 
are alone incompetent to establish that of the wri- 
tings. It must consequently be maintained on other 
grounds. 

II. The next point relates to the manner in which 
apologetic divinity must suitably accomplish its object. 
The first rule is, to conduct the defence with a view 
to the attacks to which the divine truth of Christi- 
anity has, in the greatest degree, been exposed. It 
has very often been forgotten, that it is not merely 
the object of this branch of theology to remove 
objections, to solve doubts, and to lessen the force of 
discrepances ; but it is also bound to advance positive 



16 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

proof. Many, who have attempted to defend the cause 
of Christianity, have supposed that they have accom- 
plished the latter, when they have done nothing more 
than a part of the former. 

III. Two principal methods of argument have 
been employed ; that which defends the truth of 
revelation on internal evidence, and that which 
considers the whole subject in the light of a his- 
torical fact, and derives its conclusion from external 
proof. 

In the former class of argument, three points have 
been urged as of principal importance. The first con- 
sists in that eminent superiority which revealed religion 
possesses over what is called natural, in imparting tb 
us so much knowledge which this cannot possibly 
communicate, and which nevertheless is necessary, 
because indispensable to our happiness. Revelation 
fills up the void which nature is incompetent to satisfy. 
It must therefore be divine, as none but God can make 
such disclosures. The second point is, the correspon- 
dence of the instructions imparted by revelation with 
what our own reason recognizes as true and noble and 
suited to our destination ; and hence the inference is 
drawn, that these instructions must have been commu- 
nicated from above, since the men who first published 
them to the world could not possibly have derived 
them from any other source. The third and last point 
which has been adduced in this argument is, the influ- 
ence which the doctrines of revealed religion exercise 
in the soul. Here experience has been appealed to in 
order to show, that its truths produce a stronger im- 
pression upon man than all other known moral doc- 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 17 

triues ; that thereby his will is more powerfully direct- 
ed, his heart more powerfully moved, and his whole 
nature more steadily excited to attain excellence, than 
by the operation of all others. Hence it has been con- 
cluded, that some higher power than that which ordi- 
narily accompanies truth, must be connected with the 
truths of Christianity, and from this it has been inferred 
that the origin of these truths is divine. 

In the latter method of argument, that which main- 
tains the truth of revealed religion on external evidence, 
there are also three prominent points, which have been 
regarded as sources of proof Unlike the former class, 
these three are the only external sources of argument. 

The first, and that which has been principally em- 
ployed, is the proof from miracles, to which the greatest 
force has been attributed. Its validity depends upon 
the supposition, not to be denied, that the Almighty 
would not permit an impostor to exert a supernatural 
power, by means of which all mankind might be 
deceived in a matter relating to their highest interest 
This being granted, nothing more is necessary than to 
establish the historical truth of the miracles of our 
Lord and his apostles, and it follows that their doctrine 
is from God. — In a manner very similar is the same 
conclusion drawn from the prophecies which are con- 
tained in the scriptures. If some of those prophecies 
can be proved to be real predictions of future contin- 
gencies, that is, of such events as no human prudence 
and sagacity could foresee, it is unquestionable, that a 
divine power co-operated in producing them ; as none 
but that being whose understanding is infinite, could 
possess a previous knowledge of such events. — In 

2 



18 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

modern times a third source of external proof has been 
employed, derived from the human credibility of the 
founder of our religion and of his apostles. The inter- 
mediate steps necessary to establish this argument, are 
easily supported. That Christ and his apostles are 
worthy of the highest degree of credit, which can 
possibly be given to men, is evinced from their charac- 
ter ; from their personal circumstances ; from the cir- 
cumstances of the time and nation in which they 
appeared ; from the object which they had, and which 
alone they could have, in view; from the internal 
marks of truth, not to be mistaken, which are discove- 
rable in their writings ; from the whole spirit of their 
instructions ; and even from the declarations of their 
most inveterate enemies. And when this previous 
question, the credibility of our Lord and his apostles, 
is settled in opposition to all doubts, we may infer the 
divinity of their doctrine either immediately, or by aid of 
the argument derived from the performance of miracles. 

That all the proofs above stated are not equally 
satisfactory and conclusive, will be evident to every 
thinking mind : and consequently, it must be equally 
evident, that apologetic divinity requires very critical 
investigation, much impartiality in examination, and 
great logical precision in argument. 

IV. V. The author now proceeds to a literary 
history of the subject, and gives a brief account of the 
principal works which have appeared in defence of 
revealed religion, from the apology of Justin Martyr to 
the productions of his own day. He then adds (VI;) 
some directions for the best method of studying it with 
most success. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 19 

In the first place, he earnestly advises all who enter 
upon the study of theology, not to investigate the 
proofs of the divine authority of revealed religion 
without bringing themselves to feel, that the subject is 
not destitute of difficulties. Thus they will not satisfy 
themselves too easily with the strongest proof that may 
be most accessible; nor will they want a sufficient 
interest in the examination, to induce them to take 
pains in removing difficulties, the weight of which they 
have felt. 

In the second place, a man must study the proofs 
of divine revelation for himself, he must himself inves- 
tigate and examine, he must see with his own eyes, in 
order to form conclusions of his own reasoning. Let 
him analyze every proof presented to him, let him con- 
sider whether the consequences deduced are really 
legitimate, or whether they are in any degree unfound- 
ed. Thus, let him establish his positions on incontro 
vertible ground, and draw his conclusions in a logical 
manner, and then only can he feel conscious of pos- 
sessing a true, useful and satisfactory proof of the divine 
origin of Christianity. 

Lastly, when a man has examined a proof, and 
satisfied himself that it is one on which he may safely 
rely ; he should then subject it to the test of the doubts 
and the thorough investigation of others. Let him pro 
cure some work, which attempts to overturn the proofs 
of revelation, and is especially directed against that in 
favor of which his judgment has decided. Let him 
remove all the objections which it contains. Let him 
ask himself whether his argument can be defended 
against them ; and if so, in what manner, — what reply 



«0 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

can be urged on the other side. The result of such a 
trial of the strength of an argument, can never be pre- 
judicial to the cause of truth. 

HISTORY OF THE CANON. 

I. By the very significant word Canon is under- 
stood, in the theology of the present day, the collection 
of those writings, which, on the testimony of the church 
in the earliest age, are attributed to inspired authors : 
in other words, the aggregate of those books which we 
consider as divine, because we believe in the inspiration 
of their authors, and which, for this reason we distin- 
guish from other books, the writers of which cannot be 
proved to have been inspired. In a proper history of 
this subject, therefore, it is necessary to show, why each 
individual book contained in the sacred collection of the 
Old and New Testaments is regarded as canonical, or 
how it acquired its canonical authority ; that is to say> 
on what grounds the certainty or credibility rests, that 
its author was inspired. 

II. The first point in this discussion is, to deter 
mine the authenticity of each book asserted to be 
canonical ; and after this, the genuineness of each 
must be proved. To both these it is important to add,, 
a knowledge of the period in which they were com- 
posed, of the circumstances connected with their origin, 
of the object for which they were written, and of the 
persons for whose use they were principally prepared 
and to whom they were originally directed. The 
nearer we can arrive at certainty on all these points, 
the stronger must be our conviction of the truth of the 
others. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 21 

III — X. The author proceeds to suggest some con- 
siderations on the best way of meeting the requisitions, 
and on the materials on which the proof of the above 
particulars can be founded. He then discusses the 
methods in which the inspiration of the scriptures may 
be thought to be satisfactorily argued, and after esta- 
blishing this most important principle upon divine 
attestation, the testimony of Christ, and making 
some useful observations with respect to its application, 
he gives a literary history of the subject from the first 
century to our own. This account comprehends a 
brief notice of the most important works on the 
subjects above stated, which have appeared since the 
reformation, together with a sketch of the controver- 
sies and discussions which have arisen, either on the 
subjects themselves, or on points connected with them. 
As a minute detail would be inconsistent with the 
design of this introductory chapter, the reader is 
unavoidably referred to the learned author himself for 
particular information. 

2* 



i 



EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY 

PART I. 



SACRED PHILOLOGY 



CHAPTER 



The third of those different branches of litera- 
ture which belong to exegetical theology,* is what is 
called sacred philology. It may readily be sup- 
posed, that this term must comprehend at least, more 
kinds of knowledge than one, each of which again 
must bear its own appropriate appellation. For this 
reason the extent of sacred philology may be very 
variously determined, and this has frequently been the 
case, as at different periods a greater or less degree of 
knowledge has been assigned to it ; but this variable- 
ness is of no more importance than the names that 
may be given to the particular parts of which the 
subject is composed. It is quite a matter of indiffer- 
ence to what these names are applied, and in what 
manner, provided they are applied, so as to compre- 
hend the whole. No apology therefore can be necessa- 
ry, if, in this work, whatever belongs on the one side, 

" The two former are apologetic divinity, and history of the 
car.on. as stated in the introductory chapter. Tr. 



24 SACRED PHILOLOGY. 

to an acquaintance with language, and on the other, to 
the knowledge of criticism required to settle and 
explain the true sense of our holy scriptures, is appro- 
priated to the department of sacred philology. Criti- 
cism, it is true, might be represented as a distinct branch 
of knowledge, and philology be confined to acquaint- 
ance with language, yet it can produce no incon- 
venience if the application of the term be so extended 
as to comprehend both. 

By the view already suggested, a three-fold object is 
proposed with which sacred philology is to be employed, 
or to which its labors must be directed. The know- 
ledge of languages, to be given or collected, by its aid. 
forms two divisions, for it is well known that our 
sacred books were written in two different languages ; 
criticism constitutes its third part. What learning is 
required in order thoroughly to investigate this subject, 
why a laborious investigation of it is necessary, and 
what assistance is offered for the purpose, are the points 
which it is my intention to examine, and to place in a 
clear light. 

If we commence with considering the knowledge 
of languages necessary to explain the New Testament, 
it is known to all, that it is the Greek in which the 
writings belonging to this book were composed. Yet 
it is also equally known, that this Greek language of 
the New Testament is very widely different from the 
actual language of ancient Greece and its national 
writers. There was formerly indeed a class of theolo- 
gians, who were ready to charge a man with heresy, if 
he only intimated that the apostles had not written pure 
Greek ; but they are now entirely extinct, and at pre- 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25 

sent it is universally acknowledged, that the dialect of 
the New-Testament contains a multitude of peculiari- 
ties, which are as foreign to the true Greek idiom as 
their occurrence in the language of the apostles is na- 
tural* 

Of the truth of this, a man may convince himself 
at any moment by an experience which is incontro- 
vertible. Whoever has learned Greek merely from the 
New Testament, or in other words, whoever, according 
to the method which not a very long time since pre- 
vailed in almost all our schools, has learned only the 
Greek of the New Testament, will undoubtedly find 
the Greek of Demosthenes, of iEschines, and of Thucy- 
dides, as strange and unintelligible as Arabic. He may 
be able to translate the whole of the New Testament, 
but he will not be able to translate a single sentence 
from the works of those authors ; and, on the other 
hand, if he understand these, the language of the New 
Testament will no longer be altogether strange to him, 
although still not altogether familiar. This betrays too 
plainly to be mistaken an intermixture of the peculiari- 
ties of a foreign dialect, or rather of an entirely foreign 
tongue, which must be found therein ; and indeed, if 
the reader is not altogether unacquainted with the in- 
termingled language, it will strike his eye at the first 
look. 

He immediately meets, for instance, with idioms of 
the national language, which was vernacular in the 
provinces in which the authors of those writings lived, 
and among the people from whom they descended. He 

* Note II. 

■ 

K7 />'/ 



26 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 



observes whole phrases, literally translated from the 
Syro-Chaldaic, the language in common use in those 
countries. In very many turns of expression, in the 
peculiar use of several particles, in the manner of con- 
necting particular phrases and words, in the frequent 
repetition of certain figures of speech, he immediately 
recognizes men, accustomed from childhood to think in 
an oriental tongue ; and from these indications he is 
led to conjecture independently of much examination, 
that many of their expressions must not be understood 
in the signification which they bore in pure Greek, but 
in that which the correspondent expression in the na- 
tional language conveyed, and which is merely thereby 
translated. 

And if he have no previous acquaintance with this 
intermingled language, the result will still be the same. 
Every foreign language, which a people receive merely 
as adventitious and which they are forced to receive 
by outward circumstances, must unavoidably be com- 
mingled with the more ancient native tongue, if it can- 
not fully supplant this tongue ; and it must be com- 
mingled most unavoidably by the lower classes, who 
have not acquired either language according to the 
rules of grammar, but merely by intercourse with 
others and through necessity. But, as certainly as the 
former observation expresses the fact with regard to the 
Greek language, which was employed by the Jews in 
the time of the Apostles merely in their intercourse 
with foreigners and strangers ; so is the latter applica- 
ble to most of the writers of the New Testament, who, 
with the exception probably of St. Paul and St. Luke 
merely, had undoubtedly no other facility in the use of 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 27 

language, than that mechanical ability which inter- 
course, hearing and exercise can supply. 

It is evident, then, that nothing but a miracle 
could have enabled the apostles to speak and wnte 
pure Greek, and this miracle would have been not 
only without an object, but in direct opposition to the 
object in view, since it would have made them less 
intelligible to the very men, to whom they were imme- 
diately to announce the doctrine of Christ, and among 
whom they were first to bring in circulation the senti- 
ments of his new religion. It was therefore not only 
a groundless notion, but in fact somewhat irrational, 
which, from reverence to the Holy Spirit, by whom the 
scriptures were inspired, was maintained in former 
times and supposed to be obligatory, that they are 
written in the very purest dialect. On the contrary, 
their allowed inspiration would rather justify the pre- 
vious conjecture, that their language cannot be pure 
Greek. For, undoubtedly, the reasoning is clear and 
satisfactory, that if these writings are inspired, they 
are probably composed in the popular language of the 
men for whom they were immediately intended, and 
consequently in the corrupt dialect intermingled with 
Hebraisms and Chaldaisms, into which the genuine 
Greek must unavoidably have degenerated among the 
Jews in Palestine. Yet these conjectures and supposi- 
tions are by no means necessary, for the evidence is 
conspicuous and incontrovertible, and they are the less 
necessary, as at present a divine is scarcely to be found 
who doubts the fact. 



28 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 



CHAPTER II. 

If now this is the case with the language of the 
New Testament, which is at present distinguished by 
the name of Hellenistic, it becomes of itself abundantly 
evident, that a particular study of this language is 
necessary, and also why it is so. This necessity is the 
stronger, as the want of an accurate acquaintance with 
it may, and inevitably must give rise to proportionably 
erroneous interpretations, and to misconceptions of the 
meaning. 

This acquaintance is necessary in order to under- 
stand a multitude of phrases in the New Testament, 
which are transferred immediately from the Hebrew, 
and translated not at all in the spirit, not at all in the 
form of thought, but merely into the words of the 
Greek language. To the expressions, "kingdom of 
heaven, Spirit of God — visitation," and many others, 
which occur so frequently in the Hellenistic dialect, 
the pure Greek idiom attaches no clear sense, because 
they were either never used by real Greeks, or never 
in the sense of the sacred writers. And as little does 
it know of the significations which the former so often 
gave to its connecting words and particles, of which it 
will be sufficient merely to refer, as examples, to the 
two prepositions hs and «, which in the New Tes- 
tament are so very often employed, contrary to all 
Greek usage, merely in the signification of the Hebrew 
prefix J- 

But, without accurate acquaintance with this dia- 
lect, the reader is in the most difficult situation, when 
he meets with words, in themselves pure Greek, and 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29 

also in the sense in which they are in part taken pure 
Greek, but which, by the intermixture of a Hebrew 
idea, may have acquired some modification, either 
extending or limiting their application. Cases of this 
kind occur not only very often, but probably much 
oftener than is supposed, or has yet been ascertained- 
When the apostles endeavored to express in Greek the 
ideas which they had formed for the most part in 
Hebrew or Syro Chaldaic,* they could not always find 
words altogether adequate to convey the entire thought 
with all its intended bearings, as it was connected in 
their minds with the Hebrew word. They selected 
therefore the term which expressed their conceptions 
the most fully, and in its customary acceptation came 
nearest their whole idea, or else that which was a 
literal translation of the Hebrew word, although in its 
usual signification designating something else : but still 
it was their intention to express thereby the very same 
idea, which the Hebrew word usually suggested to 
their minds. 

With regard to many words, very frequently occur- 
ring m the New Testament, this case undoubtedly 
applies. When, for example, the apostle wished to 
express the idea of the Hebrew word Di 7fc?, simply 
the Greek c^m presented itself to his mind; but as 
the Hebrew term conveyed to a Jew much more than 
the other did to a Greek, we may certainly suppose, 
that the apostle also intended the surplus idea to be 
attached to the word, and therefore in interpreting, the 
Greek idea connected with rfftfMj must be amplified or 

* Or, at least, according to the Hebrew or Syro- Chaldaic 
idiom. — Tr. 

ft I 3 



30 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 

elevated, according to the Hebrew suggested by 0)^12? . 
The same is undoubtedly true of the words foa«os, Sy tos , 
i6fa a\fi6eta, the meaning of which, in the language of the 
New Testament, is certainly much less frequently 
that of the pure Greek usage, than of the Hebrew 
words with which they correspond, and of which 
they are a translation. 

If, then, a person is not acquainted with this pecu- 
liarity of the language, he will be the less able to avoid 
the danger of an error in explaining the writings com- 
posed in it, because he may the more readily commit 
one unconsciously and without observing it. If such 
expressions are interpreted according to the ordinary 
and incorrupt Greek usage, a meaning is certainly 
gained, and indeed in very many cases, a meaning 
which appears to be sufficiently appropriate. The 
older divines, who formerly applied to the word <5t*aioj, 
wherever it occurred in the New Testament, only the 
Greek forensic meaning of righteous, were always able 
to give sense and connexion to the places where they 
thus explained it; and yet the interpretation which 
this led them to give it in some places was very 
unsound, since with respect to many it can be incon- 
trovertibly proved, by a more accurate acquaintance 
with the usage of the New Testament, that the sense 
which should be expressed is not that more limited one, 
but rather the more comprehensive signification of the 
Hebrew p*"l¥. Without this acquaintance then, it 
is, in such cases, very possible indeed to miss the sense 
of the sacred writer, at the very time when we suppose 
that it can be found with the greatest ease, and that we 
have found it with the greatest certainty ; and princi- 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31 

pally on this account is the study of this language 
altogether indispensable, to enable us to interpret with 
security and confidence. 

These remarks on the peculiar characteristic of the 
New Testament language, are sufficient to show the 
importance of studying it. But it is not so easy to 
perceive what helps can be obtained in pursuing this 
study ; and, in fact, we are restricted to an extremely 
small number. 

The most natural and useful must immediately 
occur to every one. Since the peculiarity of this 
Hellenistic dialect consists in the intermingling of the 
Hebrew and Syro-Chaldaic idioms with the pure Greek, 
an acquaintance with the two former languages must 
of course throw the most light on it. But notwith- 
standing this, it is very evident, that we could succeed 
much better, particularly, we could distinguish the inter- 
mixture with far more accuracy, observe it probably 
much more frequently, and note its characteristic marks 
with much more certainty, if we were in possession 
of many works of this period, written in the same 
dialect. But here we are completely at a loss ; for even 
the writings of the almost contemporaneous Philo, in 
which something illustrative might be looked for, are 
in language so entirely different in its construction, that 
they can afford but little aid to interpretation, in the 
comparison in which we would willingly employ them, 
however important may be the assistance they can 
offer it in other respects. 

We have yet another source from which we may 
derive assistance in cultivating a knowledge of this 
dialect, a source, which, although not contemporaneous. 



32 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 

is. on that account, in other respects the more useful. 
I mean, the Greek version of the Old Testament, which 
is known by the name of the Septuagint. This is not 
only for the most part composed in the Hellenistic 
language, but it maybe considered in a certain view as 
its original source. 

As to the precise time when this version came 
into circulation, we are quite as much in the dark as 
we are concerning the causes that originated it, and the 
persons by whom it was brought to a termination. 
The old legend of Aristeas respecting the seventy 
interpreters, who at the wish of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
were dispatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria, there 
inclosed in as many separate cells, but so inspired by 
the Holy Spirit that each produced a translation cor- 
responding word for word with those of the others, is 
now universally held to be, what it certainly is, a fable. 
From internal evidence however it is demonstrable, 
that this version cannot be the work of one translator ; 
for a comparison of particular books display such 
a difference in respect to the style, the knowledge of 
language, and the attention paid to the translation, that 
it must be considered as the production of many per- 
sons, very unequal in diligence and ability. Hence 
we have also sufficient grounds for the supposition, that 
the translation was probably not occasioned by one 
external cause originating in some coalition, neither 
did it arise at one time, or was even completed in one 
place, but that, in its present state, it may have grown 
out of a selection from different translations of the seve- 
ral books already extant after they had been collected. 
But who caused this collection to be made, and brought 



NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 33 

together the separate translations into one whole, are 
points of which we know nothing ; only it is probable, 
that this was done originally in Egypt and at Alexan- 
dria ; and it is certain, that in the time of Christ and 
his apostles, this version was in general use even among 
the Jews in Palestine.* 

This last circumstance, the truth of which is 
unquestionable, is principally important in showing its 
utility in illustrating the language of the New Testa 
ment. In this version the Hellenistic language must 
originally have been formed, for in it the Greek was 
employed probably for the first time to express the 
sentiments of the Jews on national and religious sub- 
jects, which had always before been conceived exclu- 
sively in Hebrew. In part the character of these 
sentiments, and probably in part also the character of 
the translators, made it unavoidable, that the Greek of 
the version should receive a considerable accession of 
oriental forms ; and to this the desire of the latter to 
leave a translation as literal as possible may perhaps 
have contributed. This peculiarity of the version 
would in the greatest degree favor the general estima- 
tion in which it was held by the Jews, as this estima- 
tion also must necessarily in course of time have made 
the Greek of the version the common dialect of the 
people. Men who belonged to the lower classes of the 
nation, as the apostles undoubtedly did, probably derived 
from it all their knowledge of the Greek tongue.t The 
religious sentiments of the whole nation were moulded 
in no other Greek form but that in which they had 



Notelll t Note IV. 

3* 



34 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 

been received in this translation, for the people were 
accustomed from childhood to think of them in no 
other. It was therefore more than merely natural, that 
this form should show itself also in the language of 
the apostles. 

From this statement it becomes exceedingly evi- 
dent of what use this version is, in aiding the student 
to acquire a more correct acquaintance with the 
language of the New Testament. It is evident to every 
one who looks into the subject, that a multitude of 
turns of expression and other peculiarities by which 
the Greek of the New Testament is distinguished, are 
derived immediately from the Septuagint, where they 
had before been used. It is impossible therefore to 
doubt that these idioms are of oriental extraction, and 
that the sense to be given to those expressions must be 
Hebraistic, since a comparison of them with the origi- 
nal infallibly shows what the translators intended to 
denote by them. And even with regard to those 
oriental forms connected with Greek expressions of 
which the Septuagint affords no examples, at least none 
precisely verbal, it can very often be shown that they 
were framed by the authors of the New Testament, 
only in accordance with the spirit, and according to 
the analogy, of similar expressions, which they had 
found in that version. 

This translation therefore is of the very highest 
importance ; it is an aid in acquiring a correct know- 
ledge of the language of the New Testament which is 
altogether indispensable, and the more especially as it 
is almost the only one that we possess.* Yet it is quite 

* Note V. 



STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 35 

clear, that a part of its utility must arise from an 
acquaintance with the original language of the Old 
Testament. This also becomes therefore important in 
a variety of views, for in many respects it becomes 
immediately necessary in order to understand the 
New Testament. But in reference to this language 
nothing need be said in the present chapter, since, from 
its own importance, or on account of those books of 
our holy scriptures which the Old Testament compre- 
hends, it constitutes the second leading topic of sacred 
philology. 



chapter iii. 

That, in order to attain a knowledge of the Hebrew 
language, a particular and appropriate study is re- 
quired, and why this is the case, it is certainly unne- 
cessary to show. We see, at the first look, that it has 
so much that is peculiar, characteristic, and, especially 
in comparison with our modern and western languages, 
remarkable, that its acquisition cannot be facilitated by 
an acquaintance with most others : and yet. in another 
view, and in consequence of other circumstances, we 
might almost as easily be led to suppose, that, notwith- 
standing this, the particular study of it need not demand 
extraordinary exertions. 

Although in forming an acquaintance with this 
language, we are forcibly struck with its peculiarities, 
yet we soon perceive also, that they are few in number 
and have little variety. The characteristic properties 
which mark its formation, its connexions, its inversions, 
must undoubtedly be altogether new to one. who from 



36 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 

his youth has always been accustomed to a western 
language ; but on the other hand, it remains the more 
constant, it is subject to fewer changes, it has always 
the same forms, which the reader meets with the 
oftener, and, which is of the greatest importance, the 
whole language is poorer in words and expressions 
than any other with which we are acquainted. This 
circumstance, together with that first adverted to, must 
very considerably diminish the difficulty of acquiring 
it. For if the last only be considered, it will appear 
very natural, that a language containing only about 
seven thousand words, which is the number assigned 
to the Hebrew, should be learned much sooner than 
another which possesses a richer vocabulary. 

This mode of estimating degrees of difficulty is 
certainly in itself quite correct, and it would undoubt- 
edly follow from it, that the study of the Hebrew lan- 
guage must be easier than that of any other, were it 
not for one particular circumstance, which again com- 
pletely destroys the facility that might otherwise arise 
from the causes above stated. In a language which 
has only seven thousand words, we may without doubt 
soon acquire a readiness, if we have only sufficient 
assistance, to enable us to ascertain with ease and 
certainty the significations in which the words are 
used. The facility of doing this, is in proportion to the 
number of works which are extant in a language, for 
the oftener we find a word employed, and employed by 
various authors and in various connexions, the more 
certain we become as to its meaning, while, on the 
contrary, the more we are destitute of helps of this 
nature, the more difficult it must be to arrive at eer- 



STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 37 

tainty ; and this may make the acquisition of an ex- 
ceedingly poor language often more difficult than that 
of the richest. This is unhappily the case with the 
Hebrew. 

It were easy indeed to retain its seven thousand 
words ; but to fix the signification of these words with 
some degree of certainty costs the more labor, because 
we have no other Hebrew work but those which are 
comprised in the Old Testament ; at least none in the 
dialect of those writings, and of that age to which they 
belong. Hence it is, that of these seven thousand words 
there are many which occur scarcely six or eight times, 
others which are hardly found three or four times, and 
there are even some which in all those writings are 
only used once. How is it possible then, to arrive at 
sufficient certainty respecting the meaning of these last, 
by any method, and respecting the meaning of the 
others, from the few instances in which they are to be 
met with ? 

On the one hand there are merely some kindred 
languages, and on the other some versions, whereby 
alone we can be properly guided. The former 
are the Syriac, Chaldee and Arabic, from which the 
Hebrew partly originated,* and in which it has partly 
lost itself. Those versions in particular are there- 
fore the most useful, which we have of the Old 
Testament in these three languages, although the 
Samaritan Pentateuch also, and the different Greek 
translations, some fragments of which we still possess, 
may be used with much advantage. In addition to 

* Note VI. 



38 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 

the Septuagint, we know that six other Greek versions 
of the Old Testament were composed ; for Origen in 
his Hexapla, besides that and the translations of Theo- 
dotion, Aquila and Symmachus, collated a fifth, sixth 
and seventh, which were extant in his time, although 
they did not comprehend all the books of the Old Tes- 
tament. Since it is now certain, that they were all 
made from the Hebrew text, it is easy to be perceived 
that they might be as useful for understanding it, as 
those which we have in the kindred languages. 

From these we are not only able to determine with 
confidence the meaning of the Hebrew words, but we 
receive also through them, especially through the 
Arabic and Syriac versions, some light respecting the 
derivation of many words. From the same source we 
receive further disclosures relating to the use of proper 
and figurative language in Hebrew ; we find its sense 
and spirit more clearly expressed in the forms, which 
are similar although somewhat differently turned, by 
which they represent them ; we become more familiar 
with those forms of the oriental mode of thinking ; 
and, lastly, we are able to arrive at more perfect con- 
viction of the correctness of whatever is brought to 
bear upon the Hebrew text from this source, because 
we have many works still extant in these languages. 

By means of these helps, it is certainly possible to 
acquire a knowledge of the language of the Old Tes- 
tament, but only by their means. No one therefore 
will continue to suppose that its acquisition is a very 
light matter. The application of these helps presumes 
the study of those kindred languages, and however 
easy this may be as to the Chaldee and Syriac, it is 



i 



SACRED CRITICISM. 39 

quite the contrary with the others. In the Arabic, the 
difficulty arises from its richness, and in the Samaritan, 
from the total want of documents remaining in it ; for 
it is only in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in some 
coins with Samaritan inscriptions, that the language is 
preserved. 

What has been said is undoubtedly sufficient, to 
give in general a just idea of the most important points 
connected with the study of sacred philology, so far as 
relates immediately to the knowledge of the languages, 
which is indispensably necessary to interpret the holy 
scriptures. It is proper now to treat of the third 
branch of literature belonging to this subject, namely, 
sacred criticism. The nature of this department, and 
the subjects in which it is occupied, will show in the 
clearest manner, why it is very properly considered as 
a part of sacred philology. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The immediate object of sacred criticism is, not 
to understand and interpret the holy scriptures, but to 
examine their genuineness and incorruptness, and that 
not only in general but also in particular places. 
But even this does not constitute the whole of what 
this subject comprehends. Criticism must determine, 
whether the text of our sacred scriptures, in its present 
state, is in all its parts in the same condition, in which 
it originally came from the hands of its authors. In 
other words, for every separate passage it must give 
reasons, and satisfactory reasons too, why it should be 
considered as entirely unaltered, or else as having 



10 SACRED CRITICISM. 

sustained some change. And, in the latter case, when 
it has reasons to conjecture that an alteration has taken 
place, its province is, to propose the surest means, by 
which the place may be restored, with the greatest 
certainty or probability, to its original condition. 

The duty of criticism is, therefore, two-fold : in the 
first place, to discover the changes which have taken 
place in the original text; and then, to restore the 
genuine readings which have been excluded by them. 
We do not therefore include all that this department 
comprehends, if we limit our ideas of it to an acquaint- 
ance, in all their extent, with those principles, by which 
the genuineness of a writing may be examined, judged 
of and proved. Undoubtedly criticism is required for 
these purposes ; but it is required also for more than 
these ; its application is necessary even in those writ- 
ings, the integrity of which has already in general 
been examined and proved. 

The integrity of a writing is not necessarily injured 
by every change which its text may have undergone ; 
but for this reason, it may be useful, and important in 
many respects, to know those changes also which have 
not directly corrupted a writing. This can afford 
criticism sufficient employment, even in those writings 
the integrity of which is already attested, as criticism 
can here perform sufficient service. It is this especr 
ally, which makes it a study of its own, and necessary 
in relation to our sacred scriptures. That criticism 
which is only required to prove their integrity in gene- 
ral, is satisfied with very few principles and helps ; 
but to discover and correct all isolated alterations, in 
the smallest points, very many more and in part entirely- 



SACRED CRITICISM. 41 

different are necessary, the application of which is 
more difficult, even in the proportion in which it often 
becomes necessary. 

Previously to any examination of the subject, it 
may readily be imagined, that there are none of our 
sacred books, which have not experienced such changes 
in particular places, and even in a multitude of instan- 
ces. It is altogether inconceivable that writings, some 
of which were to be preserved several thousand years 
merely by means of transcribed copies, and which were 
in fact preserved by those means, under the hands of a 
vast variety of men, whose opinions respecting their 
contents were equally various, should have remained, 
without any alteration, in the state in which they 
originally proceeded from their authors. It would be 
necessary, as has been before remarked, to suppose a 
perpetual miracle through all that period, merely to 
make this possible; but since nothing in the world 
justifies such a supposition, we certainly cannot be 
surprised, if each of those writings discloses innumera- 
ble traces of some foreign hand. 

Still, however, it is by no means necessary to sup- 
pose, that these traces must always have arisen from 
the hand of a corrupter. It may very well be thought, 
that in all these changes the text has really not been 
interpolated or corrupted in its essential contents : but 
yet we perceive why it may still be very proper, indeed 
often very important, to trace out these changes by the 
aid of criticism, although we are previously convinced 
that essentially no corruption has thereby been pro- 
duced. Something, nevertheless, has the scripture 
thereby lost. The sense of the author may at least 

4 



42 SACRED CRITICISM. 

thereby be occasionally obscured. A misconception 
of it becomes now the easier, and, which is of chief 
importance, we never know with entire certainty, 
whether changes have not taken place also in mat- 
ters of importance, and the contents essentially suf- 
fered, until we have availed ourselves of all those 
means by which we can receive certainty on this 
subject. 

It cannot therefore be doubted, that the application 
of criticism to the treatment of the Bible is quite as 
necessary and useful, as to that of any ancient writer. 
Indeed, with regard to the former, it must be more 
useful and more necessary, in the same proportion in 
which its contents are to us more important and inter- 
esting. But now the principal inquiry is : — what are 
the means, by the assistance of which, it may hope to 
pursue the two objects that belong to it, with some 
degree of success. 

It is certainly not unnatural to anticipate the judg- 
ment, that neither the one nor the other can be easy, 
for it may readily be pre-supposed that in neither may 
criticism venture to derive aid or satisfaction from 
empty conjectures. Merely to suppose that interpola- 
tions might be in the text, could be of no more service 
to us than to frame conjectures respecting the original 
reading ; but even to make such suppositions certain 
signs and marks are necessary, for these are not mat- 
ters to be blindly guessed at. 

Happily, there are many of those signs and marks, 
from which more than bare conjectures can be drawn. 
The knowledge and application of them constitute the 
essentials of criticism ; but the knowledge is as compli- 



SACRED CRITICISM. 43 

cated as the application is difficult, and also in but too 
many cases uncertain. 

Four principal sources are usually admitted, from 
which criticism may draw those indications and helps 
on which it is principally to rely, partly to ascertain 
what changes have taken place, and partly to restore 
the original readings; and from these sources, they 
must, from the very nature of the subject, be drawn. 

The first is, an accurate acquaintance with the 
peculiarities of the language, wherein not merely the 
sacred scriptures in general, but each particular book 
was composed. 

The second is, a comparison of the various manu- 
scripts or copies which we have of them, originating 
at various periods. 

The third consists of the various translations which 
have been made of them into foreign languages. 

The fourth and last, which must be employed but 
seldom, springs from the writings and remains of the 
earlier fathers, and generally of the earlier ecclesiastical 
writers, who have made some use of the Bible. 

It is in general easy to perceive in what manner 
criticism can avail itself of these four sources, and even 
what materials, useful for the object it has in view, it 
may draw from each of them. But to make use of 
any one of them some skill is necessary, and also some 
directions to enforce caution, because of the number of 
minor circumstances, by which the nature and import 
of what is drawn from each may so easily be altered. 
In forming an estimate of this, such a variety of points 
must be considered, that it becomes necessary to take 
some notice of each in particular. 



44 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 



CHAPTER V. 

The first of those sources of assistance in criticism 
which have been mentioned — that namely which is 
afforded by an accurate knowledge of the language of 
the sacred scriptures — is undoubtedly the most natural, 
and on this account also it is principally to be relied 
on ; and indeed in most cases it is easiest to be applied. 
The greatest part of those interpolations, which have 
arisen merely from incidental errors of copyists, inter- 
change of particular letters, transpositions and omis- 
sions, must generally be discovered by this ; and often 
they are thus infallibly discovered ; for in the greatest 
number of such cases the transcriber must have com- 
mitted an error, as the altered word must almost always 
receive a form or termination not analogous to the 
grammar of the language. 

Whenever therefore we meet with a passage or a 
word, the grammatical construction of which is in- 
correct, or which is connected with another, contrary 
to the principles and usage of the language, we have 
just ground for suspecting, that in this place the text 
has suffered a change ; and this suspicion rises to cer- 
tainty, when, as is generally the case, the reading which 
is grammatically correct may be restored by a slight 
alteration. If, for instance, we find in one place the 
article 6? in the nominative, where the rules of gram- 
mar require the accusative, we may believe with the 
greater certainty that hv is the genuine original reading, 
in proportion as it is easy to conceive how readily the 
error may have arisen, merely through the interchange 
of the two letters, from a transcriber acquainted with the 



PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 45 

language, and much more from one who was ignorant 
of it.* 

In this way a multitude of errors may not only be 
exposed, but immediately corrected, by grammatical 
acquaintance with the language. Only, with respect 
to the writings of the New Testament, it must be re- 
membered, that a judgment is to be formed, not accord- 
ing to the grammatical principles of the pure Greek, 
but of the Hellenistic dialect, with which therefore it 
is necessary to be particularly acquainted. If all were 
to be considered as interpolated which is not pure 
Greek, or if among a large collection of various read- 
ings the pure Greek should always be preferred, more 
interpolations would undoubtedly be made than re- 
moved ; and therefore, we should lay it down as a 
principle, that when a choice is to be made between 
two readings, one of which is Hellenistic and the 
other pure Greek, if in other respects they are of equal 
authority, the former is to be preferred. Thus, for 
example, the preposition efc is used in a multitude of 
places in the New Testament, where every pure Greek 
dialect would have employed h , and this has occasion- 
ally induced a transcriber to change the former, which 
he supposed to be erroneous, into the latter, which in 
his judgment was more correct. In many of these 
places therefore we rind various readings, of which 
one has th and the other h, and we may almost infalli- 
bly conclude the latter to be interpolated, as the use of 
ak for iv is one of the most remarkable peculiarities of 
the Hellenistic language, in which and not in pure 
Greek the apostles wrote. 

* Note VII. 

4* 



46 PECULIARITIES OP LANGUAGE. 

But this knowledge of the grammar and general 
peculiarities of the languages of scripture, is not in all 
cases sufficient : criticism frequently requires a know- 
ledge of those nicer peculiarities, which distinguished 
various writings composed in the same dialect. In 
other words it is necessary not only to possess a gene- 
ral acquaintance with the idioms of the Hellenistic 
and Hebrew languages, but with those also which are 
peculiar to each particular author, and form the cha- 
racteristics of his style. 

The variety of these peculiarities in the sacred 
writers is quite as striking in those who wrote in 
Hebrew, as it is in those who wrote in Greek. With 
respect to the former, the length of time which sepa- 
rated some from others must undoubtedly have a 
bearing on this remarkable variety ; for it is incon- 
ceivable, that the language of the more modern pro- 
phets should entirely correspond with that of Moses, 
who preceded them about a thousand years. In those 
writers also, who were much more nearly coeval, the 
varieties with which the difference of personal cha- 
racter, of the education and discipline by which each 
individual was formed, and of the course of thought 
peculiar to each, must mark their language, are as 
clearly exhibited, as in the works of the contemporane- 
ous authors of the New Testament, in which they force 
themselves on the attention of the reader. 

The difference between the style of Jeremiah and 
that of Ezekiel is as remarkable as that between the 
mode of writing of the apostle Paul and St. John. 
But still, however often and plainly these varieties 
present themselves on the whole and in general, it 



PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 47 

requires much more than a grammatical, it requires a 
very philosophical knowledge of language, to appre- 
hend them in particular cases. 

It is very easy to observe, that one writer has used 
certain expressions in a different sense from another, 
or has employed certain expressions oftener than the 
other ; that the connexions of his own ideas are desig- 
nated by his own connecting words ; that he has ac- 
customed himself to certain constructions, inversions, 
parallelisms, metaphors or other figures of speech ; that 
he has taken more or less pains with respect to gram- 
matical correctness, force, brevity, or the harmony and 
euphony of Iris style ; and that, consequently, his lan- 
guage assumes a definite character, which it is impos- 
sible to mistake. But all these general observations 
are not sufficient for the use of criticism. It must 
trace out the reasons of these peculiarities in the parti- 
cular character of the writer. It must examine, how 
he has acquired or can have acquired them. It must 
laboriously apply itself to learn how his language was 
formed ; and not until then can it draw any sure 
opinions from these peculiarities, for not until then 
can it be satisfied, that what it has remarked are not 
merely incidental varieties of style. 

No other knowledge of language than this deserves 
the name of critical, and we are fully justified in 
distinguishing it from that which is merely philo- 
logical or grammatical, for it must be drawn from 
sources entirely different from this. But it is self- 
evident, how much it can and must be employed in 
the criticism of the sacred scriptures, and how neces- 
sary it is in that principal subject, the restoration of 



48 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 

the original and genuine readings in interpolated 
places. 

It is very often, for instance, the case in those 
writings, that transcribers, who possessed no sach cri- 
tical knowledge of the characteristic style of each 
author, either considered some peculiarity of this kind 
that occurred as an error, and introduced an arbitrary 
alteration, or undertook to alter the copy, in order to 
make the place correspond better with another of simi- 
lar contents, which dwelt in their recollection, from some 
other writing. In all such cases, it is evident that 
nothing can remove the error, but that knowledge of 
language to the want of which it is alone to be attri- 
buted. 

But it cannot be denied, that there are innumerable 
other cases, in which this help is not of itself sufficient. 
In by far the greatest number, it becomes necessary to 
connect with it a second, that namely which is offered 
to criticism by the collation of the different copies of 
our sacred books which can be procured. This is un- 
doubtedly the resource in which it is necessary for it 
most frequently to take refuge : and, in the one depart- 
ment of its duty, this can also with the greatest ease 
and certainly afford assistance : but it is necessary to 
add, that in the second and more important, the aid 
that must be expected from it, is neither so great nor 
so much to be relied on as might certainly be wished. 

This comparison of various manuscripts may be 
employed in the detection of interpolated places, with 
far more advantage than any other means. So soon 
as various readings are discovered to exist in various 
manuscripts, it is decided, that in one or more the text 



COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 49 

must necessarily have undergone a change. And 
again, when all agree, an interpolation can hardly 
be supposed, unless in some word a striking gram- 
matical error occurs, which is not to be explained 
by any peculiarity, elsewhere made known to us, of 
the sacred writer's style. Indeed, in cases of this kind, 
it is always somewhat doubtful, when no result is pro- 
duced by the collation of manuscripts ; so that we 
may almost venture to maintain, that this should never 
be omitted, if complete certainty is required with respect 
to an interpolation. 

On the other hand, however, in the correction of 
interpolated places, we may very easily promise our- 
selves more aid from this means of assistance than it 
is able to afford. 

This inconvenience is principally to be ascribed to 
the condition, or rather the uncertainty we are in 
respecting the condition, of most of the manuscripts 
which we are able to collate. Still, however, notwith- 
standing all this uncertainty, they are not entirely use- 
less for that purpose : but to make use of them very 
many cautions and rules are necessary, which criticism 
must observe, and conditions, which it must prescribe 
to itself. These rules and conditions cannot always be 
fully complied with ; and even where this is practica- 
ble, they do not always at first afford full and sufficient 
certainty. 

For example : it may be thought, that the genuine 
reading of a corrupted passage can with sufficient ease 
and certainty be determined by those which are found 
in the most ancient manuscripts, and also in the great- 
est number. Criticism therefore really assumes it as a 



50 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 

principle, that the reading of an older manuscript is 
generally preferable to that of one which is more 
modern, and is with greater probability to be regarded 
as the original reading ; for it concludes, and not with- 
out reason, that the copy which approaches the nearer 
to the age of the original must contain fewer aberra- 
tions from it than one more remote, or that the writing 
which has passed through fewer hands must have been 
subjected to fewer changes. And in general this may 
be perfectly correct. But sometimes this reasoning 
gives no great satisfaction, for it is only from a certain 
and definite age of a manuscript that this inference can 
be rightly drawn ; and then, how many exceptions 
must be allowed ? how many cases must be granted to 
be possible at least, which again may cast some doubt 
on the authority of the oldest copy ? 

The most ancient manuscript that we possess can 
hardly be placed as high as the fifth century,* for many 
critics would make it still more modern. But if it be 
as old as that century, and if we have many of equal 
antiquity, they are still four hundred years removed 
from the autographs. In this course of time numer- 
ous corruptions may have taken place, and thus it may 
even be doubtful, whether, in comparing them with 
more modern manuscripts, a very great degree of im- 
portance should be attached to their antiquity. 

It is possible that a manuscript, which is two or 
three centuries later, one for instance of the seventh 
or eighth century, might be copied from another of 
still higher antiquity than the Alexandrine ; for it may 
certainly be conceived, that in the seventh or eighth 
* Note VIII 



COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 51 

century a manuscript of the third may have been 
somewhere concealed. In this case then the regard 
due to antiquity must not be determined in favor of 
the manuscript written in the fifth century, but of that 
which belongs to the seventh. 

But should it even be supposed, that we are in 
possession of a manuscript written in the third or 
indeed in the second century ; can criticism venture to 
consider its age alone as a sufficient reason for conclud- 
ing with confidence that all its readings correspond with 
the original ? If the copy were made by an ignorant, 
inattentive, negligent transcriber, and certainly there 
were such in the second and third centuries as well as 
in the seventh and eighth, its high antiquity would not 
benefit us. Other remarks, therefore to prove the accu- 
racy of a manuscript,' must certainly be added to those, 
before we can decide upon its genuineness from its 
antiquity. 

More easily still may we deceive ourselves, and to 
much greater danger of error shall we be exposed, if we 
determine the genuineness of a reading by the greater 
or less number of the manuscripts which contain it, 
and consequently found our decisions upon the agree- 
ment of many against a few. 

The reason why the same reading is found in 
many manuscripts may be this, that they were copied 
from each other, or that they are all copies of some 
more ancient manuscript used in common. In this 
case, they can have altogether no more than one voice, 
for altogether they prove nothing more than this ; that 
the one manuscript from which they were all copied 
contained the reading in question. 



52 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 

But frequently a reading may also have been in- 
troduced into many copies, on this account, because its 
very character recommended it in the same way to 
many transcribers. 

Thus a suspicion of its genuineness may often be 
excited ; for it was frequently the case, that they suf- 
fered themselves to be led astray, by plausible reasons, 
to regard the genuine reading as interpolated, and to 
introduce in its place another which they supposed to 
be preferable. 

In consequence of these circumstances, criticism, 
very prudently, has always subjoined limitations to the 
law, which determines the correctness of a reading by 
the majority of the manuscripts in which it is contained- 
It grants no more than this, that a majority of those 
manuscripts, which can be fully proved to have arisen 
from different original sources, or, in the language of 
modern criticism, that are of different recensions, can 
determine any thing on this subject. If it can be 
shown, for instance, that a manuscript, which was 
copied at Constantinople, agrees, as to a particular 
reading, with another made in Egypt, and also with a 
third derived from the west, then surely a probable 
conclusion may be drawn in favor of the genuineness 
of that reading ; for all the presumptions for this conclu- 
sion are, that the manuscripts belong to different families, 
and all against it, that, in manuscripts altogether dis- 
tinct from each other, a passage might be interpolated 
in exactly the same way. 

Yet, however useful to criticism this view of the 
derivation of manuscripts may be, and this distribution 
of them into certain classes, which is undoubtedly 



RECENSION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 53 

necessary, it will always involve a multitude of diffi- 
culties, which must naturally modify in a great degree 
its utility. By means of the most laborious researches, 
the latest efforts of criticism have resulted in the conclu- 
sion, that most of the manuscripts which we possess 
belong to three families, or may be traced to three 
recensions, the diversity of which cannot be doubted. 
An Alexandrine, a Constantinopolitan, and a Western 
copy, may have been the originals of all the manu- 
scripts, amounting to some hundreds, which we have 
of the writings of the New Testament. Another re- 
cension, arising from Asia, may perhaps be added, to 
these ; but here, in too many individual manuscripts, it 
is exceedingly difficult to determine to what class they 
belong, since very frequently they bear the family marks 
of several.* 

But while this subject is unsettled, our conclusions 
must be proportionably insecure, since, as was before 
said, we have scarcely any manuscript more ancient 
than the sixth century ; and consequently, it is upon 
the whole quite certain, that the collation of manu- 
scripts can render criticism a service much more to be 
relied on, in the discovery of interpolations, than in re- 
storing the genuine readings. 

Sometimes indeed it is happily the case, that these 
may be ascertained, with the highest degree of proba- 
bility, from the others. When the manner of a tran- 
scriber is thoroughly known, it occasionally and indeed 
Soften happens, that the mere shape of a letter, the position 
of a line, the form of a mark of abbreviation, the similar 
i 

* This subject of recensions will come under consideration sub- 
sequently in a, note. Tr. 

5 



54 USE OF THE VERSIONS. 

sounds of some words, the necessity of a division of 
a word, and several minor circumstances of this kind, 
enable us to conjecture with confidence, how the 
genuine reading became changed in the hand of a 
copyist. In this way, many discoveries, which are 
certainly not unimportant, have already been made; 
but it must freely be confessed that, in this way, all 
has not been gained that could be wished, and which, 
considering the prodigious degree of learning and 
labor which has already been exhausted, we are doubly 
tempted to wish for. 

Yet this learning and labor are not to be regretted, 
since assistance of this kind is absolutely necessary for 
criticism. And, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted, 
that the advantage, in correcting the sacred text, which 
criticism might draw from the collation of manuscripts, 
would be still more equivocal, unless it were able to 
add also a third means, which is particularly well 
adapted to try the genuineness of the benefit, which 
may be derived from the collation of the manuscripts. 



CHAPTER VI. 

The third means just referred to is afforded by the 
versions of the sacred scriptures. These, as we have 
seen, are very important in reference to an acquaint- 
ance with the languages in which they were written, 
but they may almost be said to be even more so in 
reference to criticism. There is one circumstance, 
especially, which makes them so highly useful, although 
it must be allowed that it is applicable exclusively to 
the New Testament. 



USE OF THE VERSIONS. 55 

Some of the versions which we have of it are con- 
siderably older than all our manuscripts. The Syriac, 
for example, belongs most probably to the second cen- 
tury. The fragments of the old Latin versions, which 
are frequently comprehended under the name of Italic, 
cannot be much later. The Gothic of Ulphilas was 
made in the fourth century, and of course what remains 
of it is of the same age ; and of the Arabic versions in 
our possession, one at least is certainly of very high 
antiquity. 

The importance of this circumstance is extremely 
evident. In all cases it may be presumed, that these 
translations were made from manuscripts, which at the 
time were not entirely new ; and therefore the age of 
some may have almost reached that of the autographs. 
Consequently, whenever it can be determined, from one 
of these versions, what was the reading of the manu- 
script from which the version was made, its antiquity 
gives it an authority vastly superior to that which any 
manuscript now existing can claim. 

That the readings of those manuscripts may often 
be learned from the versions with the greatest certainty, 
and how this information may be obtained from them, 
is self-evident ; but it may also be remarked, that the 
advantage afforded in such cases is the more important, 
since, in the nature of the thing, it can scarcely ever 
exist except in weighty and important variations. 

In most of those insignificant changes of reading, 
where the whole difference often lies merely in the 
omission of an article, the transposition of a word, or 
the alteration of the tense of a verb, it is certainly not 
easy to conjecture from the versions what the reading 



56 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 

may have been in the manuscript used by the trans- 
lator. But in such cases as affect whole words com- 
muted, phrases omitted or interpolated, or even sen- 
tences and whole periods rejected, the conclusions to be 
drawn from the versions are necessarily as determinate 
as they are certain. In such cases, the reading given 
in the version, may with confidence be regarded as the 
reading of the manuscript, and the authority of this 
manuscript may often with sufficient certainty be con- 
sidered as decisive, if it can only be strengthened by 
some evidence of probability of an internal kind. 

Nevertheless, we see very plainly, that even in 
applying this means, and in drawing conclusions from 
the versions, very great caution is required ; that it is 
necessary to have formed a previous acquaintance with 
the spirit of each version ; that we must be thoroughly 
satisfied on this most important point, whether it were 
made from some other version or from the original : 
and then, that we also make all possible allowance for 
errors of the translator. It is quite evident, that by 
proceeding in this manner, bringing out these errors 
and applying these cautions, we may promise ourselves 
the more advantage from the use of this help in criti- 
cism. 

This is undoubtedly not the case with the fourth and 
last means, which criticism may employ. This is to 
be found in the works of the early fathers, and in gen- 
eral of all the older ecclesiastical writers who made 
some use of the Bible. 

It is by no means necessary in this work to explain 
in what manner, and to what purpose, and under what 
circumstances, criticism ean avail itself of those works. 



QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 57 

They contain a multitude of literal quotations from 
the scriptures. When cases occur, in which the cita- 
tions differ from the passages as they stand in our 
present text and in some manuscripts, a conjecture 
arises, that the copy used by the author may have con- 
tained a different reading, and thus the suspicion of an 
interpolation is produced. But certainty can never 
result from this source ; indeed it will scarcely justify 
conjecture and suspicion. We are never certain 
whether the ancient author transcribed the quoted pas- 
sage literally from his copy, or, as was very possible 
and in fact was very often done, trusted merely to 
his memory ; and consequently we are never certain 
whether the alteration, from which we might conjec- 
ture a various reading to have existed, had taken place 
in his copy or in his memory. 

Yet there are particular cases or interpolations 
which by means of this assistance, can be discovered 
with sufficient certainty. When, for instance, a place 
is interpolated by the introduction of a supposititious 
clause, the works of the ancient fathers will sometimes 
enable us to infer with tolerable correctness, not only 
the spuriousness of the clause, but also the time when 
it may have been casually introduced into the text. 
If the place is quoted by many and various writers 
uniformly without the addition, this is a certain proof 
that it was added by some later hand. The first quota- 
tion, therefore, in which it occurs, affords grounds for 
conjecturing when and where the interpolation was first 
casually made. 

Thus, for example, it may be considered as one of 
the most important collateral proofs of the spurious- 



18 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 

ness of 1 John v. 7, that no Greek father even to the 
fourth century seems to have been acquainted with it, 
as it is cited by none for a considerable time after the 
breaking out of the Arian controversies ; while, on the 
other hand, the earlier use which was made of it by 
Latin fathers places it almost beyond doubt, that the 
interpolation was first made in Latin copies, and from 
these introduced into Greek.* 

From this example it is also exceedingly evident, 
that the conjectures which by these means are afforded 
to criticism, it may expect for the most part to be able 
to strengthen on other grounds both external and in- 
ternal ; for in the text just referred to, both the contents 
of the supposititious passage, and the circumstance 
that it is not to be found in any ancient Greek manu- 
script, afford more than one weighty reason to confirm 
the conjecture, that it may have been first introduced 
into the Latin copies. Hence then the degree of util- 
ity which can be afforded by this help to criticism, 
may also be determined with sufficient accuracy. In 
connexion with the others it can supply criticism with 
many very valuable results, but independently the data 
which it affords are exceedingly uncertain. 

What has been said may be sufficient to give a 
clear idea of what the object and application of sacred 
criticism particularly are ; for along with the sketch of 
the means which alone, from its nature it can employ 
in attaining its objects, must the character of these 
objects be most perspicuously exhibited. 

* Note IX. 



HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 59 



CHAPTER VII. 

In giving an account of the literary helps which 
may be used in the study of criticism and of sacred 
philology in general, in proportion as it might be neces- 
sary to go into particulars, would it be easy to antici- 
pate the great advantages that we might expect to 
derive from them. It will be useful, however, first to 
give a brief general view of the history of this branch 
of theological literature, in order the better to prepare 
the reader for marking, from the succession of ages in 
which the principal works on the subject have ap- 
peared, the particular periods of its progress, and its 
gradually improved condition. 

With the exception of the labors which Origen, 
in his Hexapla bestowed on the philology and criticism 
of the Old Testament, and those which Jerome 
applied to the latter, in his Latin version of the Bible, 
the works of the ancient fathers, scarcely furnish any 
thing, by which the one or the other had been inten- 
tionally and directly advanced by them.* 

Except a few individuals, as Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret and some 
others, they were not only exceedingly destitute of a 
learned acquaintance with language, particularly the 
Hebrew; but, which was still more to> be lamented, 
they had no conception of the necessity of accurate 
acquaintance with this subject, for the purposes of 
correct interpretation. 

In the middle ages all learned acquaintance with 
languages was entirely lost. In consequence of the total 

* Note X. 



60 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 

ignorance which prevailed on this subject, a great 
number of the grossest philological errors, which had 
gradually crept into what was called the Vulgate, that 
is, the Latin version which was exclusively used in the 
church, were not observed. Yet afterwards, at the 
revival of learning in the sixteenth century, this very 
state of things afforded the immediate occasion for 
some of its most distinguished restorers to apply their 
industry to this altogether uncultivated field, and to 
endeavor to excite a renewed attention to the study 
of the original languages of the Bible. 

This was first done with respect to the Hebrew 
by the celebrated John Reuchlin. and by the more 
celebrated Erasmus of Rotterdam with respect to the 
Greek, and with a zeal and success, which alone must 
have made their names immortal, if they had per- 
formed no other services in the cause of literature. 

Erasmus felt the necessity of treating the text of 
the Bible in a critical manner ; he had even come to 
the conclusion that for this purpose different manu- 
scripts must be compared, and their various readings 
collected : he did this himself in relation to the New 
Testament as far as he could in his time ; and thus he 
opened the way to criticism which was soon afterwards 
pursued still further by Beza, the two learned brothers, 
Robert and Henry Stephens, and some other 
scholars. 

This last discovery was almost too great for the age ? 
of Erasmus. On account of the zeal with which he 
recommended to divines the knowledge and study of 
the original languages of the Bible, he met with abund- 
ance of hostile treatment. Neither he, nor the two - 



HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 61 

Stephenses, nor even the example of the great promoter 
of the Complutensian Polyglot, was able to awaken a 
feeling only somewhat general in favor of criticism. 
But still, learning in languages flourished again in full 
bloom from their age ; although some time was allowed 
to elapse before sacred philology derived from it a real 
advantage. 

Very much on this subject was effected by the ex- 
ample of Melancthon and Luther, who applied them- 
selves to it with the most ardent zeal, and consequently 
became qualified to offer to the German nation the 
most beneficial of all presents, in Luther's translation 
of the Bible. But more efficacious than the example 
and the exhortations of Luther and Melancthon, was 
the necessity, which soon pressed upon the divines 
of the newly established church, to defend themselves 
against the supporters of the old system, or the desire 
of being distinguished in all respects from them ; 
so that by their means an acquaintance with the 
original languages was soon considered as an indis- 
pensable requisite of a learned divine. 

Greek and Hebrew studies were now pursued with 
great ardor by the Protestants, and were also employed 
with peculiar zeal in making known to the Roman 
i Catholics numerous errors in their Vulgate. But for 
the more accurate study of the Hebrew their helps 
were too limited ; and with respect to the Greek, they 
lost but too soon the proper track which had been first 
pursued, and consequently missed entirely the right path? 
which had otherwise been found with so much facility. 

Erasmus and Melancthon had proceeded with the 
study of the pure Greek, of the genuine ancient Greek 



62 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 

classics, and this they had earnestly recommended to 
their contemporaries. Had this course been persisted 
in, it would soon have been discovered, that the lan- 
guage of the New Testament has peculiarities which 
must have been introduced from another source than 
that, and also that another was required for its illustra- 
tion. But the whole direction which the spirit of the- 
ology had taken at the end of the sixteenth century, 
and which was introduced in the following, was neces- 
sarily unfavorable in the highest degree to this disco- 
very. Exegetical theology was unhappily altogether 
subjected to the yoke of doctrinal and polemic divinity. 
It did not venture to look any farther than within 
the bounds which these prescribed to it ; and there- 1 
fore even the grammar of the languages of scripture 
was studied with constant reference to them. The 
prevailing system of divinity imposed laws on sacred 
philology which it was obliged to respect, and which 
in fact were respected with such obsequious timidity, 
that it allowed itself even to imagine the Greek style, 
defended by the advocates of pure doctrinal theology, to 
be the only ancient and genuine idiom, and it even de- 
clared it impious merely to doubt whether the Apos- 
tles had always written in pure Greek. 

This was attended with an unfortunate conse- 
quence. It soon became the prevailing disposition to 
learn Greek from their writings alone ; and it was 
said to be learned, when, in determining the significa- 
tion of their expressions, nothing more was regarded 
than the convenience which might thereby result, or 
which had long ago resulted to doctrinal theology. 
The unavoidable consequences of such a course are 



i 



HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 63 

shown, even in a stronger light than was absolutely 
necessary, by the whole state of theological literature 
in the preceding century. 

In order gradually to bring the subject into its right 
course, it was therefore very suitable and proper, that 
in our own age a commencement should again be 
made to illustrate the Greek of the New Testament 
from the Greek of the old profane writers, and to ob- 
serve the advantages which the study of these can af- 
ford : for this most immediately prepared the way for the 
direction, which the philological study of the New Tes- 
tament has taken among us during the last thirty years. 
The new acquaintance with the genuine Greek 
idiom at last produced the conviction, that the lan- 
guage of the New Testament is not entirely classical, 
and therefore, that other sources besides the pure Greek 
writers must be required to explain it. More readily 
still were these sources found in the Septuagint transla- 
tion, in the writings of Philo, and in the oriental lan- 
guages ; and as these sources were made purer and 
more useful, by the industry of many learned men who 
successively applied their labors to them, and at the 
same time also the study of oriental literature was 
carried incomparably farther than it had ever been 
^before, by the application of Erpenius, Schultens, 
pReiske, Michaelis and others, it was very natural that 
sacred philology should soon assume among us a per- 
fectly new form. 

With still greater reason may sacred criticism be 
considered as literature of our age and altogether new. 
Richard Simon indeed,* the great man who may be 

* Note XI. 



64 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 

allowed to occupy a most distinguished place among 
those who brought it to light, had previously made his 
appearance. Capel also had preceded him. But the 
treatment to which these men were subjected, the al- 
most universal cry of heresy with which they were 
received, and the real persecution which rewarded their 
labors, too clearly prove the incompetency of their age 
even to judge of their discoveries, to say nothing of 
making use of them. 

What they had said of the necessity of a critical 
examination of the original Greek and Hebrew 
texts was almost considered as blasphemy, since in- 
deed this was to question their genuineness. Thus, 
instead of applying themselves carefully to ascertain 
the means by which criticism could be placed in a 
condition to discover and correct the errors that had 
crept into the text, the object almost universally 
aimed at was, to prove that no correction was ne- 
cessary. 

The light against which men had hitherto closed 
their eyes was first in our age admitted, in succession 
by Mill, Wetstein and Bengel. They investigated the 
sources, some of which had already been opened by 
Simon, and by the use which they made of them they 
proved, not only that criticism was harmless, but that it 
can be made beneficial in proportion as it is necessary : 
although the pious Bengel himself was forced to listen 
to many a bitter reproach or account of the bold auda- 
city with which, as it was thought, he treated the Bible.* 
The labors, in our own age, of Michaelis, Griesbach, 
Matthaei, in the criticism of the New Testament, and 

* Note XII. 



HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 65 

of Houbigant, Kennicott, De Rossi, in that of the Old, 
ire well known. 

This brief outline of the history of the different 
treatment which the several branches of literature that 
belong to sacred philology met with, will enable the 
reader to form some judgment respecting the different 
value and utility of the principal literary works relating 
to the subject. These I shall now proceed to state, in 
the order of time in which they appeared, confining the 
selection however to the more important and remark- 
able. It will also be necessary to separate from each 
other, those which belong to the knowledge of the 
Greek and Hebrew languages, and also those in which 
the labors of criticism in relation to the Old and New 
Testaments are contained. Thus the valuable helps 
in each of these departments, afforded by the collec- 
tions of the learned, can the more easily be perceived, 
from the improved order in which they are arranged. 



C HAPTER VIII. 

With respect to the philological knowledge of our 
Greek text, it is proper, in the first place, to give some 
account of the discussions and controversies, which 
were carried on in the last century and partly also in 
our own, respecting this important question : Is the 
language of the New Testament pure Greek or Helle- 
nistic — a pure Greek dialect or one corrupted with 
Hebraisms and Chaldaisms ? 

In the sixteenth century Erasmus and Laurentius 
Valla had not only intimated, but plainly enough 
asserted and also proved the latter opinion by variou* 



66 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

arguments. Many of the best scholars of their time 
had also very willingly embraced their opinion on the 
subject, when Henry Stephens, in the preface to his 
edition of the New Testament printed in 1576, under- 
took to oppose them, and to prove that the Greek of the 
New Testament was pure. This first induced divines 
to pay attention to the different opinions held on this 
subject ; yet it never assumed the form of a controversy, 
until the signal^ was given by Sebastian Pfochen 
in the following work. 

Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puri- 
tate, ubi quam plurimis, qui vulgo finguntur, Ebraismis 
larva detrahitur, et profanos quoque ductores ita esse 
locutos ad oculum demonstratur, Amstel. 1629. 

The warmth, evident from the very title, with 
which Pfochen defended in this work the pure Greek 
idiom of the New Testament, excited in Holland as 
well as in Germany many learned men to espouse the 
opposite side of the question. But again this roused the 
disposition of others to maintain what they conceived 
to be the truth, or else confirmed their obstinacy, so 
that they defended with equal earnestness the positions 
of Pfochen. Hence a literary war arose which con- 
tinued even in our own century. 

In 1639, Joachim Jung published in Germany his 
Sententiae doctissimorum quorundam virorum — de 
Hellenistis et Hellenistica dialecto, in which he proved 
against Pfochen, that the Greek of the New Testa- 
ment is Hellenistic. But in the very next year he 
was opposed by Jacob Grosse at Jena with a Trias 
propositionum theologorum stilum Novi Testamenti a 
barbaris criminationibus vindicantium, where he 



HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 67 

represented all defenders of the Hellenistic idiom as 
hateful heretics. 

In the same year therefore, Daniel Wulfer wrote 
a vindication of them: Innocentia Hellenistamm 
vindicata. But now Grosse directed against him his 
Observationes pro triade observationum — apologeticae'; 
and as the amiable and learned John Mus^eus, in a 
Disquisitio de Stilo Novi Testamenti, which he pub- 
lished in 1641, did not altogether declare himself in 
his favor, he attacked this good man so severely in a 
Tertia defensio triados, which came out at Hamburg, 
in 1641, that Musaeus found himself compelled to pub- 
lish in 1642, Vindiciae disquisitionis de stilo Novi Testa- 
menti. Even this did not impose silence on Grosse, 
who sent into the world a fourth defence of his Trias, 
which was published at Hamburg in 1642. 

At this time also the controversy was first agitated 
in Holland. Here the celebrated Daniel Heinsius had 
already, on several occasions, (as in his Aristarchus 
sacer, and in the preface to his Exercitationes sacrae in 
Novum Testamentum,) opposed the sentiments of 
Pfochen respecting the purity of the Greek in the New 
Testament ; but now he did so at large and intention- 
ally in an express Exercitatio de lingua Hellenistica, 
which in 1643 he published at Leyden. On the other 
hand, the no less celebrated Salmasius published, in 
reply to him, not less than three controversial works 
that same year, the contents and character of which 
are easily recognized from their titles. That of the first 
is : Salmasii Hellenistica — sive commentarius con- 
troversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens; of the 
second : Funus linguae Hellenisticae, sive Confutatio 



63 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

exercitationis de lingua Hellenistica ; and of the third : 
Ossilegium linguae Hellenisticae, sive Appendix ad 
confutationem, &c. 

In a short time many scholars of other countries 
took part in the controversy. Thomas Gataker of 
England, in a Dissertatio de stilo Novi Instrument, 
Loud. 1648, defended with much warmth the party 
and opinion of the Hellenists. In Switzerland this was 
done principally by Samuel Werenfels, in a treatise 
de stilo scriptorum Novi Testamenti, and among our 
own divines by John Olearius in a work de stilo 
Novi Testamenti, and by Henry Boeckler in a 
treatise : de lingua Novi Testamenti originali. But 
even in Holland, after the first combatants had left the 
arena, the controversy was carried on by John Vors- 
t i us as its principal conductor, in his Philologia sacra 
— de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti, Leyden, 1658, to 
which in 1665 he published a second part, under the 
title : Commentarius de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti,* 
after Horace Vitringa had attacked the first in a 
publication entitled : Specimen annotationum ad philo- 
logiam sacram Yorstii. 

In order to give posterity a correct view of the 
proceedings of this memorable controversy, two learned 
men, in the beginning of the present century, made 
with great care a collection of the most important 
works already cited, and of others also which had 
appeared on the subject : namely, Jacob Rheinferd, 
in his Syntagma dissertationum philologico theologi- 
carum de stilo Novi Testamenti, Loewarden, 1703, and 

* The best edition of this work is that of Fischer, published at 
Leipzig, in 8vo, 1778. Tr. 



HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 69 

Van der Honert, in another work, which under the 
same title he published in the same year at Amsterdam. 
Some other learned men, as John Henry Michaelis, 
and Blackwall of England, the latter in his Sacred 
classics defended and illustrated, Lond. 1727, and the 
former in a treatise de textu Novi Testamenti Greeco, 
Halas, 1707, endeavored to produce an accommodation, 
by proposing to the contending parties, that the one 
should acknowledge the Hebraisms by which the Greek 
of the New Testament was designated, and the other, 
notwithstanding its Hebraisms, should allow the style 
of it to be considered as pure. And in this way they 
would gradually have approached each other, had not 
Christian Sigismond Georgi at Wittemberg given 
new life to the controversy. 

This zealot for the purity of the style of scripture 
published in 1732, Vindiciae Novi Testamenti ab Ebra- 
ismis in three books, against which some Leipzig 
scholars, as Drs. Knapp and Dressing, maintained 
the opinion of the Hellenists. Immediately in 1733 
a new work of Georgi made its appearance under the 
title : Hierocriticus sacer — sive de stilo Novi Testa- 
menti. This also was in three books, and in the end 
of the year a second part, comprehending as many 
more, came out. They were answered again by the 
Leipzig critics. After this no one took up the contro- 
versy. The Hellenists maintained the superiority ; 
and as the further cultivation which the philology of 
the New Testament received, proceeded in general 
upon the supposition which they had contended for, 
their opinion made far greater progress in a short time 
than it had previously made for ages. 

6* 



70 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

Attention was now paid to the chief source from 
which the language of the New Testament could 
receive the greatest degree of illustration, the Septua- 
gint version. As early as the year 1715, John Henry 
Michaelis had published a treatise de usu Septua- 
ginta interpretum in Novo Testamento, containing for 
its age a number of most valuable hints. Soon after- 
wards, many of the learned began to make this version 
more serviceable, by publishing critical and improved 
editions of it. In 1707 — 1720, John Ernest Grabe 
printed at Oxford an edition corrected according to the 
most ancient manuscripts, and this was again published 
at Zurich in 1730 — 1732 in four volumes 4to, by 
John Jacob Breitinger. This is justly preferred 
to all others ; only, with the translation which it 
contains of the prophet Daniel, which is not the 
version of the Septuagint but of Theodotion, it is 
necessary to compare that which was first made 
public at Rome in 1772, folio, under the title: 
Daniel, secundum Septuaginta, and in 1773 was 
reprinted at Goettingen according to the Roman 
edition. 

From this period even to our own times, many 
learned men applied themselves, with the more earnest- 
ness, to facilitate the use of this translation, and to 
make it more general and extensive, by means of 
historical, literary and philological explanations : al- 
though in fact this had been done, not without success, 
by some older writers of the preceding century. 
Among the earlier and among the more modern works 
of this kind, the following may perhaps be pointed out 
as of most utility. 



LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 71 

Jac. Usserii Syntagma de Graeca Septuaginta in- 
terpretum versione. Lips. 1695. 

Isaac. Vossii Dissertationes de LXX interpretibus, 
eorumque translatione et chronologia. Hag. Com. 1661. 

Ant. Van Dale, Commentatio super Aristeam 
de LXX interpretibus. Amstelod. 1705. 

Jo. Ernest Grabe, Dissertatio de vitiis versioni 
LXX ante Originis aevum illatis. Oxon. 1710. 

J. M. Hassencamp, Dissertatio de Pentateucho 
LXX interpretum Graeco non ex Ebraeo sed ex Sama- 
ritano textu converso. Marpurg. 1765. 

John David Michaelis, Program of his course 
of college lectures on the seventy interpreters. Goetting. 
1767. 

Claud. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum cri- 
ticarum in versionem LXX ex Philone. Hafhiae, 
1776. 

But the actual application of this version in the 
philology of the New Testament was principally faci- 
litated by means of two works, about half a century 
removed from each other, both of which are very ex- 
cellent of their kind, and for the learned interpreter al- 
together indispensable. The older of the two is : Abra- 
ham Tromii Concordantise Graecae versionis LXX 
interpretum, Amstel. 1718, folio ; and the more mo- 
dem : Jo. Christ. Biel Novus thesaurus philologicus, 
sive lexicon in LXX et alios interpretes et scriptores 
apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. Ex auctoris manu- 
cripto edidit et praefatus est E. H. Mutzenbecher. 
Vol. hi. Hag. Com. 1779—1781, 8vo. To this last 
work Dr. J. F. Schleusner has made very valuable 
additions, in two collections which he has published 



72 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

with the title : Spicilegia lexici in Septuaginta post 
Bielium. Lips. 1784, 1786.* 

In addition to these principal sources of assistance 
in acquiring an easier and more correct acquaintance 
with the language of the New Testament, there are 
also other works, which contain collections of what is 
useful for this purpose, derived from the sources already- 
mentioned, on the one side from pure Greek, and on 
the other from oriental. 

As the characteristic of this language consists in its 
intermixture with Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, and such 
modes of speech as the Jews had long been in the habit 
of using to express certain religious ideas, very much 
depends of course upon acquiring a knowledge of these, 
for which purpose the most ample collections are to be 
found in the following works. 

Johan. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Chaldaicae 
in quatuor Evangelistas, Acta Apostol. — separat. ed. a 
Bened. Carpzov. Lips. 1684.t 

Christ. Schoettgenii Horae Hebraicae et Tal- 
mudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Vol. ii. 
Dresd. 1733, 1744. 4to. 

Gerh. Meuschenii Novum Testamentum ex Tal- 
mude et Antiquitatibus Hebraicis illustratum. Lips. 
1736. 

John Gill's Exposition of the New Testament, 
with notes taken from the most ancient Jewish wri- 
tings. Lond. 1746—1748. Vol. iii. folio. 

* Note XIII. 
t All the works of Lightfoot, comprehending of course his Ho- 
rae, were published in English in two large folio volumes, in London 
in 1684. A new edition in several volumes 8vo, has recently ap- 
peared. Tr. 



LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 

Johan. Bened. Carpzovii Exercitationes sacrae 
in epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexan- 
drino Helmstad. 1750. 

Johan. Tob. Krebs, Observationes in Novum 
Testamentum ex Flavio Josepho. Lips. 1755. 

Those illustrations which are drawn from pure 
Greek writers to illustrate the dialect of the New 
Testament, are brought together principally in the fol- 
lowing works. 

Georg. Raphelii Annotationes in Novum Testa- 
mentum ex Xenophonte collectae. Hamb. 1720, ed. 
secund. — By the same author : Annotationes in Novum 
Testamentum ex Polybio et Arriano collectae, ib. 
1715 ; — and Annotationes philological in Novum 
Testamentum ex Herodoto collectae. Luenenburg, 
1731. 

Johan. Henr. Von Seelen, Specimen observa- 
tionum ad loca Novi Testamenti — ex Plutarchi libro 
de institutione puerorum. Lubec. 1719. 

Lamb. Bos, Diatribae, sive exercitationes philolo- 
gicee, in quibus Novi Testamenti loca quaedam ex 
profanis auctoribus illustrantur. Franecker, 1700. 

Ge. Guil. Kirchmeyer, Dissertatio de parallelis- 
rao Polybii et Novi Testamenti ratione dictionis. Wit- 
teberg. 1725. 

Johan. Alberti, Observationes philologicae in No- 
vum Testamentum. Lugd. Batav. 1725. 

Jac. Elsneri, Observationes sacrae in Novi Testa- 
menti libros, quibus plurima illorum loca ex auctoribus 
Graecis et antiquitate exponuntur et illustrantur. Tra- 
jecti, 1728. 

Car. Henr. Langii Observationes philologicae in 



74 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

Novum Testamentum ex Luciano potissimum et Dio- 
nysio Halicarn. Lubec. 1732; — also, by the same 
author : Observationes in Novum Testamentum ex 
Euripide. lb. 1734. 

Ge. Dav. Kypke, Observationes sacrae in libros 
Novi Testamenti, ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis et 
antiquitate. Wratisl. 1752. 

Elias Palairet, Observationes philologico-criticae 
m sacros Novi Testamenti libros, quorum plurima loca 
ex auctoribus Greeds illustrantur, vindicantur et expo- 
nuntur. Lugd. Batav. 1752. 

Casp. Frid. Munthe, Observationes philologicae 
in sacros Novi Testamenti libros ex Diodoro Siculo 
collectas. Havniae, 1755. 

Frid. Lud. Abresch, Dilucidationes Thucydidese, 
in quibus passim Novi Testamenti loca illustrantur. 
Trajecti, 1755.* 

But all illustrations of the language of the New 
Testament, collected together from all the sources, may 
be found in the greatest completeness in the most recent 
work of this kind: J. F. Schleusneri Lexicon Grasco- 
Latinum in Novum Testamentum. Tom. ii. Lips. 
1792. Svo.t 



CHAPTER IX. 

The helps to facilitate an acquaintance with the 
original language of the Old Testament, may very 
properly be comprised in three classes. 

First, sources from which the original knowledge 
of the language of the Hebrew Bible must be drawn, 

* Note XIV. t Note XV. 



LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 

including also such works as contain directions for the 
use of those sources. 

Secondly, writings wherein the knowledge drawn 
from those sources is collected together and arranged, 
as Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances, and Collections 
of idioms of the language. 

Thirdly, we may add, those particular works, which 
illustrate by philological observations the language of 
separate books or single passages of the Old Testament. 

I. With respect to the first class of these works, it has 
already been shown, that the versions which we possess 
of the Old Testament, in the Greek and oriental lan- 
guages, are the principal sources, and almost the only 
sources, for understanding the Hebrew, which as a 
living language exists only in these writings. It is 
necessary therefore, in the first place, to take some 
literary notice of these versions. 

Here again the preference must be given to the 
Greek, from which undoubtedly the greatest degree 
of light may be obtained, as is completely proved 
by John Frederic Fischer, in a treatise de versioni- 
bus Graecis libroram jYeteris Testamenti literarum 
Hebraicarum magistros. Lips. 1772. The superiority 
of the Greek versions in this respect arises from their 
number : for in addition to the Septuagint, there existed 
in the time of Origen, three by authors well known, 
those namely of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus ; 
and also, three others by unknown translators. There 
were consequently not less than seven collated by him 
in his Tetrapla and Hexapla. It is true that none of 
these versions, if we except the Septuagint, is preserved 
complete ; indeed even the Hexapla of Origen has come 



76 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

down to us in a most lamentably imperfect state : still, 
some fragments of it remain, which can always be 
used, and which have been used, with much advantage. 
These were collected as early as the last century by 
John Drusius, in his Fragmenta veterum interpretum 
Graecorum in totum vetus Testamentum. Arnhem. 
1622. But the most meritorious service in this depart- 
ment has been performed by Bernard Montfaucon. 
who prepared with great care, and in 1714, published 
at Paris a new edition of the Hexapla of Origen, in 
two folios, which, abridged in certain places, and provi- 
ded with some additional matter, was afterwards, in 
the years 1768 — 9, printed at Leipsig, in two octavo 
volumes, by Dr. C. F. Bahrdt.* 

The character of some of these versions, of which 
fragments still remain, has first been in our own time a 
subject for critical disquisitions, by means of which 
their utility is not only more accurately and correctly 
estimated, but their application also greatly facilitated. 

The latter is done in the work of John Fred. 
Fischer, entitled : Clavis reliquarum versionum Grae- 
carum veteris Testamenti. Lips. 1758, and in John 
Aug. Scharfenberg's Animadversiones, quibus frag- 
menta versionum Graecarum Veteris Testamenti illus- 
trantur. Specim. I. Lips. 1776. 

On the former the following writings, although in 
part somewhat small, contain many very valuable and 
very necessary observations. 

Joh. Sal. Semleri epistola ad Joh. Jac. Griesba- 
chium de emendandis Grascis Veteris Testamenti inter- 
pretibus. Halae. 1770. 

* Note XVI. 



LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 

Joh. Aug. Dathe, Dissertatio in Aquilae reliquias 
interpretationis Hoseae. Lips. 1757. 

Car. Aug. Thieme — pro puritate Symmachi. Lips. 
1755. 

John Matt. Hassencamp's true origin of the ver- 
sions of the Bible disclosed, Minden, 1755, compared 
with Olav Gerh. Tychsen's Tentamen de variis 
Codd. Hebraeorum Vet. Test. MSS. generibus a Judaeis 
et non-Judaeis descriptis. Rostoch. 1772. But in oppo- 
sition to this work several publications appeared, which 
were answered by Tychsen in his Tentamen vindi- 
cated, and in his appendix to this work, both published 
at Rostock, the former in 1774, and the latter in 1776.* 

Among the other versions of the Old Testament, 
the principal are the Chaldee or the Targums, the 
Samaritan, the Syriac and Arabic. The fragments of 
the Ethiopic which are extant are not of so much 
utility, and the more modern Armenian of still less. 

Of the Targums or Chaldee paraphrases there are 
several on particular books, for instance, one on the 
Pentateuch by Onkelos, another by the pseudo Jo- 
nathan, and one called the Jerusalem. There is also 
a Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on what are 
called the former and later prophets, and another on 
the Hagiographa and the five Megilloth. 

The Samaritan version is limited, as is well known, 
to the Pentateuch. It is usually printed entire in 
what are called Polyglots, of which there are four that 
particularly deserve the name. The first rank among 
them as to age is claimed by the Complutensian Poly- 
glot, which was printed at Alcala, or Complutum, in 

* Note XVII. 



78 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

1514 — 1517, in six folios, under the auspices of cardinal 
Ximenes. The second is the Antwerp, which ap- 
peared in 1569 — 1571, in eight folios, and is often refer- 
red to under the title : Biblia regia Philippi II. The 
Paris Polyglot is the third, in ten folios, printed in 1645 
at the expense of Michel Le Jay ; and the fourth, 
which as it respects real value merits the first place, 
is the London, edited by Brian Walton in six vo- 
lumes folio, in 1657. The most complete accounts of 
these Polyglots may be found in Le Long's Discours 
historique sur les principaux editions de Polyglottes. 
Paris, 1713* 

Some of the above mentioned versions have also 
been printed separately, as for example the Arabic of 
the whole Bible at Rome in 1671, in three folios, al- 
tered by the editors according to the Vulgate. Also 
some fragments which we have of an Ethiopic version, 
the Psalter namely and the book of Ruth, were pub- 
lished at Frankfort in 1700 by Job Ludolf and Nis- 
sel. Still it may easily be supposed, that very labori- 
ous investigations, partly historical and partly philolo- 
gical and critical, were necessary, before these versions 
could be made useful in illustrating the Hebrew text. 
We must therefore, by all means, make ourselves ac- 
quainted with the results of those investigations. 

These are to be found most fully in Richard 
Simon's Histoire critique des versions ; in the Appara- 
tus Biblicus of Brian Walton, Zurich, 1670, or, as 
it is entitled in the latest edition published by Dathe 
at Leipzig, 1777, the Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta ; 
in Kennicott's two dissertations on the state of the 
• Note XVIII. 



LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 

printed Hebrew text, Oxford, 1753. 1759 ; in Houbi- 
gant's Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible, the whole 
work published at Paris in four volumes folio 1773, 
and the Prolegomena alone at Frankfort in 1777; and in 
De Rossi's Apparatus Hebraeo-Biblicus, Parma, 1782. 
On the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular, which 
gave rise to the most laborious and also the most con- 
tested discussions, the greatest mass of information 
may be found in Morini Exercitationes in utrumque 
Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Paris. 1631, in opposi- 
tion to which Henry Hottinger published his Exer- 
citationes antimorinianae de Samaritano Pentateucho, 
Tigur. 1644, whereupon Morin gave to the world his 
Opuscula Hebraeo-Samaritana, Paris. 1657. Later 
discussions on the controverted questions connected 
with these works are contained principally in Frid. 
Lmman. Schwartz Exercitationes historico-criticae 
in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Witteb. 
1756. and in Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur Tontine 
et le Pentateuque des Samaritains, par un religieux de 
la congregation de S. Maur, (P. Poncet,) Paris, 1760, 
and also in the controversial works before mentioned 
of Tychsen and Hassencamp. 

Lastly, respecting the way and manner of deriving 
from these sources an acquaintance with the language 
of the Hebrew Bible, and also respecting the use and 
application of the means which are most serviceable for 
this purpose, the best directions may be found in 
Albert Schultens' Origines Hebraeae, edit. sec. 
Lugd. 1761, and in John David Michaelis' Beur- 
! theilung der Mittel, welche man anwenden kann, die 
| ausg estorbene Hebraeische Sprache zu erlernen und 



80 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

zu verstehen, view of the means to be used, in order 
to acquire a knowledge of the dead Hebrew language, 
Goettingen. 1757. 

II. Of the second class of literary helps for acqui- 
ring a knowledge of the language of the Hebrew Bible, 
among which may be placed lexicons and concord- 
ances, works on grammar, and such as contain and 
illustrate the idioms of the language, only the principal 
and most distinguished need be mentioned. These 
are as follows. 

Castelli Lexicon Hebraicum cum annot. J. D, 
Michaelis. Gotting. 1790, 4to. 

J. D. Michaelis Supplementum ad Lexica Hebra- 
ica. P. i — vi. Gotting. 1792. 

Joh. Simonis Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et 
Chaldaicum. Halae, 1756. Also the authors Observa- 
tiones Lexic. in Supplementum Lexici manualis, Halae 
1762, edit. tert. auct. Joh. Godfr. Eichhorn, 
1793. 

Joh. Cocceii Lexicon Hebraic, et Chaldaic. auct. 
ed. a J. C. F. Schultz. T. ii. Lips. 1777. 

Joh. Buxtorfii Concordantiae Bib. Heb. Basil. 
1632.* 

Among the Hebrew and Chaldee grammars that 
have been published, the following comprise those in 
most general use, and also such as are most useful. 

Joh. Buxtorfii Thesaurus linguae Hebraicse. 
Edit, quint. Basil. 1651. 

Joh. Adr. Danzii Literator Hebraeo-Chaldaeus. 
Jenae, 1745. 

* Note XIX. 



LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 

John Henry Michaelis' erleichterte Hebraeis- 
ohe Grammatik, Hebrew grammar made easy, Halle, 
1745. 

Schultens' Institutiones ad fundamenta lingiia3 
Hebraeae. Ludg. Bat. 1745. 

Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae Hebraeae edit. 
Nic. Guil. Schroeder. Groening. 1766, and Francof. 
1778. 

J. D. Michaelis HebraeischeG rammatik nebst 
einem Anhang von gruendlicher Erkenntniss dersel- 
ben. Hebrew grammar with an appendix on a funda- 
mental acquaintance with it. Third edition, Halle, 
1778. 

William Fred. Hezel's ausfuehrliche Hebrae- 
ische iSprachlehre. Complete Hebrew grammar, Halle, 
1777. 

To these must be added, on account of the Chaldee, 
which is to be considered as one of the languages of 
the Bible, and not merely as a kindred dialect intended 
to aid in acquiring the Hebrew : 

Jac. Altingii Synopsis institutionum Chaldaic. 
cumadnot. Joh. Simonis, Halae, 1749. 

Joh. Frid. Hirtii Bibliorum analyticorum pars 
Chaldaica, praemissa introductione ad Chaldaismum 
biblicum. Jenae, 1757. 

J. D. Michaelis Grammatica Chaldaica. Goettin- 
gen, 1771. 

Some idioms and peculiarities of the biblical 
Hebrew are collected and explained in the following 
works : 

Joh. Jac Breitinger, brevis de idiotismis lin- 
guae Hebraicae commentarius. Tigur. 1737. 



82 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 

Christoph. Theodos. Walter, Ellipses He- 
braeae. Dresd. et Lips. 1740 ; another edition with notes 
by Joh. Frid. Chr. Schultz. Halle, 1782. 

Joh. Michaelis, Lexicon particularum Hebraica- 
rum. Francof. 1689. 

Christ. Noldii Concordantia particularum He- 
braeo-Chaldaicarum. Jenae, 1734. 

Joh. Christ. Storr, Observationes ad ana- 
logiam et Syntaxin Hebraeam pertinentes. Tubing. 
1779/ 

III. It now remains only to mention some writings 
of the third class, in which the language of particular 
books or of particular places of the Old Testa- 
ment is in some measure illustrated by philological 
remarks. 

We have some philological commentaries on the 
book of Job, and on the Proverbs of Solomon, by the 
great Albert Schultens. 

By N. W. Schroeder we have a commentary of 
the same kind on the tenth Psalm, published at Groe- 
ningen in 1754, and in the Sylloge dissertationum 
philologico-exegeticarum of both these scholars, Ley- 
den, 1772, as also in a later collection by Schnurrer, 
there are philological illustrations of several separate 
portions of the Hebrew text. 

In this division those works may be introduced in 
which the Hebrew names occurring in the Bible are 
philologically explained, as : 

Matt. Hilleri Onomasticon sacrum. Tubingae r 
1706. 

* Note XX. 



LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 

Christ. Bened. Michaelis Observation es philo- 
gicae denominibus propriis Hebrseorum. Halae, 1729. 

Jo. Simonis Onomasticon Vet. Test. Halse. 1741 ; 
also, the same author's areanum formamm nominum 
linguae Hebrsese, Halse, 1753. 

But especially worthy of notice are those works 
in which the poetical language of the Old Testament, 
and the characteristics of the Hebrew poetry r are 
seized on and developed, although only two modern 
publications in this department can be introduced. 
These however make all the older works more than 
unnecessary. I refer to: Roeert Lowth de sacra 
poesi Hebrseorum prgelectiones academical, Oxon. 
1753, and afterwards published at Goettingen 1758 and 
1761, with the notes of John David Michaelis ;* 
and J. G. Herder vom Geist der Hebraeischen 
Poesie, on the spirit of Hebrew poetry, Dessau, 1782. 



chapter x. 
After what has been said, nothing more is neces- 
sary than to give an account of the literary helps to 
biblical criticism; and these may be almost entirely 
limited to some great productions of modern times. 
In doing this, it will be proper to distinguish those 
works which belong to the criticism of the Old Testa- 
ment from those in which the criticism of the New, or 
the helps and sources of it, are the object of the 
authors' labors. 

* Note XXI, 



84 LITERARY HELPS TO 

The controversy which arose in the last century, 
respecting the necessity of a critical treatment of the 
Old Testament and the manner of conducting it, was 
noticed in a former chapter, because it originated in 
erroneous views of inspiration, and also of a pre- 
tended incorruptibility of the text, derived from those 
views or connected with them. The principal works 
therefore of Capel, Buxtorf, Richard Simon, 
Carpzov and others, who were chiefly conspicuous in 
the controversy, were there mentioned. These wri- 
tings of Capel and Simon, and particularly of the 
latter, contain not only the reasons which make a cri- 
tical treatment of the Hebrew text necessary, but also 
such an admirable development of the means which 
can and must be employed for that purpose, the man- 
ner in which they should be used, the caution to be 
applied and the method to be pursued, that the princi- 
pal work of this learned man, his critical history of 
the text of the Old and New Testaments, will always 
retain its rank among the works most important for 
the study of criticism. 

In addition to these publications there are others 
which deserve notice, such as : Louis De Dieu, Cri- 
tica sacra. Amstel. 1693 ; Humfrey Hody, de Biblio- 
rum textibus originalibus, Oxon. 1705. There are 
also certain learned works still older, which, on the 
various readings of what' are called the Keri and Ce- 
thib, and on the old Jewish criticism of the text or 
Masora, contain some strange explanations, and sanc- 
tion very uncritical opinions. To this class belongs : 

Matt. Hilleri Arcanum Keri et Cethib, Tubing. 
1692, in which he maintains the opinion, that the Keri 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 85 

and Cethib are to be ascribed to Ezra, who thus desig- 
nated on the margin of his copy the various readings 
which he discovered in some manuscripts. 

Also : Joh. Reinhardi Commentar. de notis 
marginalibus sacri codicis Masorethicis, Witteb. 1674 ; 
Aug. Pfeiffer de Masorah, ejus nomine, materia, 
forma, auctoribus, auctoritate et usu, Witteb. 1670 ; 
and Joh. Frid. Cotta, Exercitatio historico-critica 
de origine Masorse, Tub. 1726. 

On the method by which many additional various 
readings of the Hebrew Bible may be collected, very 
useful hints were given by Jablonsky, in the preface 
to his Hebrew Bible, printed at Berlin, 1699. But Le 
Long pointed out a far greater number of sources for 
this purpose in his Bibliotheca sacra, the best edition 
of which, printed at Paris in 1723 in two folios, was 
republished, enriched with very large additions, by 
Andrew Gottliee Masch, at Halle in 1778-1785, 
in five volumes, quarto.* Yet on these sources and the 
use of them generally, very much may be learned from 
the above mentioned Apparatus Biblicus or Prolego- 
mena of Brian Walton, and still more in the two 
dissertations of Kennicott on the state of the Hebrew 
text, a translation of which from the English into 
Latin was published at Leipzig in 1756 and 1765 
by Teller, counsellor of the superior consis- 
tory. 

The following later works also, although in part 
but small, contain very valuable additional matter for 
this purpose, and for Hebrew criticism in general. 

• Note XXII. 



86 LITERARY HELPS TO 

Erh. Andr. Frommann, Quaestio philologica, an 
variae lectiones ad Codicem V. T. ex Mishna colligi 
possint. Coburg. 1761. — Joh. Aug. Dathe, Prolusio 
de difficultate rei criticae. in V. T. came dijudicanda. 
Lips. 1762. — Gottfr. Less, de cura, quam praesens 
textus Hebraei conditio requirit. Halae, 1763. — And in 
addition to these the above mentioned Tentamen of 
Tychsen, together with the publications which ap- 
peared in reply to it by Dathe. Bruns, Michaelis 
and Hassencamp ; and lastly, J. G. C. Adler, Judae- 
orum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges ad recte aestiman- 
dos codices manuscriptos antiquos perutiles. Hamb. 
1779. 

Besides the works already noticed, it merely re- 
mains to mention those, in which the Hebrew text of 
the Old Testament is in fact critically treated accord- 
ing to those directions and by means of these helps, or 
at least the various readings, the value of which must 
be determined by criticism, are collected and properly 
arranged. Of such works we have only four, or only 
three which extend over the whole of the Old Testa- 
ment. They are as follows : 

Joh. Bened. Michaelis Biblia Hebraica. Halae, 
1720, Tom. ii. 4to.* 

Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis — Car. Franc 
Houbigant. Paris. 1753. Tom. iv r . fol. 

Yetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lec- 
tionibus ed. Benjam. Kennicott. Oxon. Tom. i. 1776. 
Tom. ii. 1780, fol. 

De Rossi, Apparatus Hebraeo-biblicus, Parmae, 

♦ Note XXIII. 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 87 

1782; also, by the same author: Variae lectiones V. 
T. Parmae, 1784, vol. ii. fol. 

There are again some works, which in part con- 
tain, among other matter, separate portions of the 
Hebrew text, in part critically collated from particular 
manuscripts, which may be considered as a sort of 
supplement to the collection of Kennicott. Of these 
the following are the principal. 

Kritisches Collegium ueber die drey wichtigste Psal- 
men von Christo, den 16, 40, und 110: A course of 
collegiate lectures on the three most important Psalms 
relating to the Messiah, the 16th, the 40th, and the 
110th, by J. D. Michaelis. Frank. 1756. 

Theod. Christ. Lilienthal, Commentatio 
critica, sistens duorum manuscriptorum, Biblia He- 
braica continentium notitiam, cum Sylloge variarum 
lectionum ex utroque excerptarum. Regiomont. 1770. 

But for the further, and in general, for the com- 
plete survey of what has been done until the present 
time for the criticism of the Hebrew text, reference may 
here be made with great propriety to William Fred- 
eric Hezel's Versuch einer Geschichte der biblis- 
chen Kritik des A. T. : Essay towards a history of the 
Biblical criticism of the Old Testament ; which made 
its appearance at Halle in 1780, 8vo. 

The criticism of the New Testament was an object 
of attention earlier than that of the Old. This was no 
doubt in a great measure owing to the fact, that the fa- 
cilities to be relied on for investigating this department 
were much more numerous, and much more accessible, 
than those relating to the other. Every library of 
some respectability could enumerate many Greek ma- 



OO LITERARY HELPS TO 

nuscripts. They must therefore have fallen into the 
hands of the learned almost without being sought, they 
must have invited scholars to compare many of them 
with each other, and from the result of these compari- 
sons criticism must necessarily have advanced to a 
greater degree of perfection. These comparisons dis- 
closed, as soon as they were instituted, many differences 
or various readings. As early as the 16th century, 
Erasmus and the two Stephenses drew the conclusion, , 
that the most important consequences must result from 
collecting these various readings, and they immediately 
began the work, which afterwards in the following age 
and in our own might be carried further, and which ; 
in fact has thus been carried. Along with this they 
began to philosophize on the principles by which, 
amidst such a multiplicity of various readings, the ge- 
nuine might be ascertained and the original restored. 
Their principles also were constantly improving, as 
additional caution in the application or use of them j 
was found to be necessary, and a more correct standard 
established whereby to estimate the results which they 
afforded. 

Beside some important works of the preceding cen- 
tury already mentioned, in which these principles and |j 
the helps for the criticism of the New Testament are || 
laboriously investigated, among which those of Simon 
are again distinguished as the most important, the fol- 
lowing, partly of that century and partly of our own, 
are deserving of particular notice. 

Jo. Sauberti variae lectiones textus Graeci Evan?. 
Matthiae — cum epicrisi de origine, usu, auctoritate va- 
riarum N. T. lectionum in genere. Helmstad. 1672. 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. S9 

Ad. Rechenberg Comment, de variis N. T. lectio- 
nibus. Lips. 1690. 

Christoph. Matth. Pfaff Commentatio critica 
de genuinis librorum N. T. lectionibus ope canonum 
quorundam criticomm feliciter indagandis, et a spu- 
riis separandis. Amstelod. 1709. 

John Mill's Prolegomena to his New Testament, 
afterwards to be noticed, and Daniel Whitby's Exa- 
men variamm lectionum Jo. Millii in N. T. Lond. 1710. 

Joh. Guil. Baier, Dissertatio de variantium lec- 
tionum usu et abusu. Altorf. 1712. 

Joh. Lud. FREYde variis lectionibus N. T. Basil. 
1713. 

Joh. Bened. Michaelis de variis lectionibus N. T. 
caute colligendis et dijudicandis. Halae. 1749. 

Joh. Christ. Klemmii Principia sacrse criticse 
N. T. Tubing. 1746. 

Anthony Blackvvall's sacred classics defended 
and illustrated, (Critica Sacra N. T. a Christ. Wollio 
Latine versa. Lips. 1736.) 

Wetstein's Prolegomena to his New Testament.* 

Joh. Alb. Bengelii Introductio in crisin N. T., in 
the preface to his edition. 

The same author's Apparatus criticus — ed. secund. 
Tub. 1763. 

Joh. Jac. Griesbachii curae in historiam textus 
Graeci epistolarum Pauli. Jenae, 1777. 

Since, in the criticism of the New Testament, very 
much depends upon the ancient versions that we have 
of it, the most important of these must be here no- 



♦ Note XXIV. 

8 



90 LITERARY HELPS TO 

ticed, together with the labors which have been applied 
to them by various learned men, in order to make them 
still more useful. 

Among all the versions the principal place is un- 
doubtedly to be assigned to the ancient Syriac, (for 
there are several of more modern origin,) which may 
probably be considered as the oldest extant. A critical 
edition of this version was prepared by John Albert 
Widmanstadt at Vienna in 1555, which was re- 
printed in the Antwerp Polyglot in 1575 with an ap- 
pendix of various readings. It first appeared complete 
in the Paris Polyglot and then in the London, after the 
Apocalypse of St. John, and the second epistle of St. 
Peter and third of St. John with that of St. Jude, which 
had hitherto remained unknown, had been discovered 
and published, the first by Louis de Dieu in 1627,* 
and the others by Edward Pococke in 1630. The 
whole was afterwards published by Charles Schaaf 
in 1717 at Leyden in 4to, accompanied by a Syriac 
lexicon of the New Testament in an additional 
volume.f 

The most extensive and complete accounts of these 
Syriac versions have been given by Glocester Rid- 
ley, in his dissertatio de Syriacarum versionum indole 
ac usu, which is appended to Wetstein's Libelli ad cri- 
sin Novi Testamenti, which Semler in 1768 published 
separately; also in the preface to Dathe's Syriac 
Psalter, Halle, 1768, and in Gottlob Christian 
Storr's Observationes super Novi Testamenti versio- 

* Apocalypsis ex MS. Scaligeri — Syriace, op. Lcdov. de Dizc. 
1627. 

t Note XXV. 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 91 

nibus Syriacis. Stuttgardt. 1772* These versions 
have often been particularly applied to the criticism of 
the New Testament, and to the correction of particular 
places, as, for instance, in the Curse in versionem Sy- 
riacam Actuum Apostolorum, of J. D. Michaelis, 
published at Goettingen in 1775. 

There are also several Arabic versions of the New- 
Testament. At least, the impressions in the London 
and Paris Polyglots, the version of the four Gospels 
printed at Rome in 1619, and the edition of Thomas 
Erpenius published at Leyden in 1616, differ much 
from each other. See Gottl. Christ. Storr, dis- 
sertatio do Evangeliis Arabicis. Tubing. 1777. 

The Ethiopic version, which appeared at Rome in 
two parts in 1548 — 9, is in the London Polyglot, but 
very incorrectly printed. 

The Persian versions are confined to the four Gos- 
pels, and are two in number, an older with notes by 
Thomas Gr^vius, and a more modern by Abraham 
Wehloc, London, 1657. 

An Armenian version was printed at Amsterdam 
in 1668 by Bishop Use an, and the Coptic by David 
Wilkins in 1716. 

But among all these last named versions, the 
Ethiopic is almost the only one which is in some 
measure useful for criticism. Most of the information 



* The following publications deserve to be particularly mentioned : 
Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana Sacrorum Evangeliorum, Joseph 
White, cum vers. Lat. Oxon. Vol. II. 1778. 4to. 

Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana et 
Hierosolymitana, cum observatt. et tabb. sen. ab J. G. C. Adler : 
Hafnise. 1789. 4to. 



92 LITERARY HELPS TO 

relating to it is collected in the preface by Christ. 
Bened. Michaelis to the Evangelium secundum 
Matthaeum ex versione Ethiop. interpretis — Christ. 
Aug. Bode. Halae, 1749. The last named scholar pub- 
lished also the first four chapters of St. Matthew from the 
Armenian version, translated into Latin, Helmst. 1757, 
and introduced in the preface the necessary accounts 
of this version. Respecting the Coptic the greatest 
degree of information is to be found in the Thesaurus 
epistolicus la Crozianus, which was published at 
Leipzig in 1742. 

Far more important however for the criticism of 
the Greek text than all these versions just mentioned, 
are the old Latin versions or rather the fragments of 
them, which are generally referred to by the names 
1 antiqua Latina* and ' Itala,' and which in part may be 
far more ancient than the time of Jerome's version 
and of the Vulgate. Of these we have only some 
fragments, and on this account it becomes the more 
difficult, and must occupy the most careful attention of 
the greater number of scholars, to collect them to- 
gether, to prepare them for publication, and to decide 
upon their merits. 

The principal works in which this is done, and 
where these fragments are collected, are as follows : 

Yulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio Evangelii 
secundum Matthaeum. Ed. studio Johan. Martianay. 
Paris. 1698. 

Acta Apostolorum Greeco-Latine e cod ice Laudiano. 
Ed. Thomas Hearnius. Oxon. 1715. 

Biblia Sacra Latinae versionis, seu Vetus Itala, 
opera Pet. Sabatier. Remis. 1743. hi. fol. 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM 



93 



Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinae versionis an- 
tique — in lucem edit, a Josepho Blanchinio, Rom. 
1749, ii. fol. 

To these may be added the old Latin text of the 
Gospel of St. John from the Cambridge manuscript, 
which Semler printed at the end of his paraphrase of 
this Gospel, Halle, 1771. 

Respecting these Latin versions, see, in addition to 
the above works, particularly the third dissertation of 
Natalis Alexander in his Trias dissertationum 
ecclesiasticarum, Paris. 1678 ; also Blanchini's Vindi- 
ciae canonicarum scripturarum Vulgatae Latinse, Ro- 
mae, 1740, with the observations and treatises contained 
in his Evangeliarum quadruplex ; and J. S. Semler's 
appendix to Wetstein's Prolegomena, published by him 
at Halle in 1764. 

Lastly : — in our age the first effort of much import- 
ance has been made to employ the old Gothic version 
of Ulphilas to the criticism of the New Testament. 
As early as the year 1670 indeed, George Stiern- 
hielm published at Stockholm Evangelia Gothice 
translata ab Ulphila, with parallel northern versions 
and a Glossarium Ulphilo-Gothicum ; but a far better 
edition appeared at Oxford under the following title : 
Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Gothica cum interpre- 
tatione Latina et notis Erici Benzelii ed. Edw. 
Lye. 1750. John Ihre, in his Ulphilas illustratus, 
threw much additional light on this version ; but in 
the year 1763, superintendent Francis Ant. Knittel 
made public a Versio Gothica Ulphilas nonnullorum 
capitum epistolse ad Romanos, which he had found in 

a manuscript of the Wulfenbuttel library. Many 

8* 



94 LITERARY HELPS TO 

writings relating to this Gothic version, by Ihre, Hup- 
pel, Esberg, Gordon and Wachter, may be found 
in a collection of Ihre, with the title : Scripta versio- 
nem Ulphilanam illustrantia, edited by Buesching. 
Berl. 1773. 

Respecting the last source from which criticism 
may derive assistance, namely, the works of the an- 
cient ecclesiastical writers, it is not necessary to say 
much. It is but little of which it can avail itself from 
these works, and even this must first be sought for 
with great labor and brought together : although there 
are some collections from writings of the fathers, 
which appear to have been made, principally with the 
view of bringing together more closely what they con- 
tain that is useful in criticism and interpretation. 

The collections referred to are those in which the 
commentaries of many of the fathers on separate books 
of the Bible are arranged and placed together, and for 
these the particular name of Catenae Patmm has been 
invented. Thus, for example, we have a catena of 
twenty-one Greek fathers on the Gospel of St. Mat- 
thew, published by Peter Possin, at Toulouse in 1646; 
and in the following year a second came out of thirty 
others. The same learned man published also a catena 
on the Gospel of St. Mark at Rome in 1673 ; Baltha- 
sar Corderius a catena Patrum on St. John, Ant- 
werp, 1630 ; and John Hentenius with Morellus 
another, on the Acts, the epistles of St. John and the 
catholic epistles, Paris, 1631. The literary and his- 
torical notices of the Catenae have been collected by 
Thomas Ittig in a separate work : de bibliothecis et 
catenis patrum, Lips. 1707 ; but on the use that can be 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 95 

made of them in the criticism and interpretation of the 
New Testament, and the advantages that may be ex- 
pected to result, Dr. Noesselt has published a work en- 
titled : Observationes de catenis patrum Graecorum in 
N. T. Hallse, 1762. 

All that now remains on this part of my subject is, 
to mention those works in which, from the sources 
stated and by the means within reach, the Greek text 
has in fact been critically examined and prepared ; in 
other words, to state those editions of the New Testa- 
ment, in which the various readings are collected, esti- 
mated according to their value, and judged according 
to the degree in which their genuineness is more or less 
probable. 

Among the olde ditions, it is proper to mention in 
the first place, the Greek text in the Oompluten- 
sian Polyglot, which was taken from a very ancient 
Vatican manuscript,* and before printing compared 
with others, the various readings of which are noted in 
the margin. This text therefore continued in very 
great repute until our own time, when Semler in 1766 
published at Halle his Genauere Untersuchung der 
schlechten Beschaffenheit des zu Alcala gedruckten 
Neuen Testaments ; Critical Examination of the incor- 
rect character of the New Testament printed at Alcala ; 
in reply to which John Melch. Goetze printed at 
Hamburg in the same year, Ausfuehrliche Vertheidi- 
gung des Complutensischen Neuen Testaments mit 
beygefuegten kritischen Anmerkungen gegen Semler; 
The Complutensian New Testament defended at length 
against Semler, with accompanying critical remarks.! 
♦Note XX VI. t Note XXVII. 



96 LITERARY HELPS TO 

After the Complutensian edition of the New Testa- 
ment follow, in order of time, those of Erasmus. In 
preparing these also various manuscripts were critically 
collated ; and therefore at least the three editions of 
1516, 1519 and 1522 frequently differ from each other, 
because in each of them the editor endeavored to im- 
prove the text, by numerous manuscripts which had 
not before been used. 

These publications of Erasmus were succeeded by 
the critical editions of the elder Robert Stephens, 
which he published at Paris in 1546, 1549 and 1550. 

Among the critical editions of Theodore Beza, 
that of 1582, printed by Henry Stephens, deserves 
to be particularly mentioned, because two manu- 
scripts which have become of great importance, one 
known by the name of the Cambridge manuscript, 
and the other the Clermont, were used in its compila- 
tion. 

In the seventeenth century, Stephen Curcell^e- 
us, and John Fell of England, meritoriously aided the 
cause of criticism, the former in his edition published 
at Amsterdam in 1658, and the latter in his which came 
from the Oxford press in 1657. 

None of these editions however will bear a com- 
parison with those great critical works which our 
own age has produced. Among these the first is that 
of John Mill : Novum Testamentum Graecum cum 
variantibus lectionibus. Oxon. 1707, fol. It was re- 
published in 1710 at Amsterdam by Loins Kuster, 
with a larger and better arranged collection of various 
readings. 

Bengel followed Mill. His critical edition of the 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 97 

New Testament, with his Apparatus Criticus, first ap- 
peared at Tuebingen in 1734. 

A greater treasure than even that of Bengel was af- 
terwards collected by John James Wetstein, whose 
Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum variantibus lec- 
tionibus codicum manuscriptorum, editionum aliarum, 
versionum et patrum, made its appearance at Amster- 
dam, in two folio volumes in the years 1751, 1752. 

In 1774, 1775, John James Griesbach published 
his Novum Testamentum Graecum cum textu ad fidem 
codicum, versionum et patrum emendato. Yol. i. ii. 8vo.* 

Another service for the criticism of the New Testa- 
ment has been accomplished still more recently by the 
same learned man, in his Symbolae criticae ad supplen- 
das et corrigendas variarum Novi Testamenti lectionum 
collectiones — cum descriptione et examine multorum 
codicum Graecorum Novi Testamenti. Hal. T. I. 1785. 
T. II. 1793, 8vo. 

In 1788, the new critical edition of the New Testa- 
ment by Professor Matth^ei in Wittenberg was 
completed in twelve volumes, in which many Moscow 
manuscripts, which had not previously been collated, 
are employed. 

Earlier in the same year appeared at Copenhagen : 
Birchii quatuor Evangelia Graeca cum variantibus 
lectionibus codd. manuscript Bibliothecae Yaticanae 
Barberinae et cet. 1784, 4to, and a year earlier : Novum 
Testamentum ad codicem Yindobonensem Graece ex- 
pressum. Yarietatem lectionum addidit Franc Car. 
Alter. Prof. Gymnas. Yindob. vol. ii. Yiennae, 1787, 
in royal octavo. 

* Note XXVIII. 



98 METHOD OF STUDY. 

Lastly, it is proper to mention the fac-similes lately 
published of two manuscripts, which have always been 
considered as of the highest importance for criticism, 
namely the Alexandrine and the Cambridge. The for- 
mer, given to the world in 1789,* was the result of the 
application of Woide, and for the latter, published in 
1 793, at the cost of the university of Cambridge, we are 
indebted to the labors of Thomas Kipling. Codex 
Theod. Bezse Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia et Acta Apos- 
tolorum complectens, quadratis Uteris Grseco-Latinus — 
Academia aspirante venerandas has vetustatis reliquias 
summa fide adumbravit — expressit, edidit — codicis his- 
toriam — notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, S. T. P. 
Cantabrig. 1793. Vol. ii. fol. Thus they have been 
brought within the reach of the learned, and can be 
more generally and more easily used. 



CHAPTER XI. 

After giving this account of the literary helps for 
the study of sacred philology and criticism, it is neces- 
sary to point out the most direct method, in which 
the study of each can most easily and successfully be 
pursued. Only with respect to this kind of literature, 
there is one circumstance, which must give to the dis- 
cussions which it involves a particular direction, if 
they lead to an useful and applicable result. 

The particular circumstance referred to is this. It 
is not only a doubtful point, whether an especial study 
of this branch of literature is necessary for every 

* Horne says, 1786. Introduction, Vol. II. Part II. Appendix 
p. 19. 



METHOD OF STUDY. 99 

divine, but it may actually admit of doubt whether it 
is possible for every one. The inquiry deserves atten- 
tion ; for should these doubts in the end really prove 
to be well founded, it will certainly be more corres- 
pondent to the object in view and more useful, here to 
direct our attention rather to the means to be employed 
in order with the least disadvantage to avoid these 
studies, and the conditions under which this indulgence 
is admissible, than to spend our time on the method of 
pursuing them with the most success. But it may be 
almost anticipated, that these doubts will appear en- 
tirely groundless, in proportion as they are the more 
closely and distinctly viewed. 

The least that can be required for the proper study 
of these branches of literature, or at least that which 
becomes the first requsite is undoubtedly this : that the 
knowledge necessary, and pertaining to it, must itself be 
drawn from those sources from which alone it can be 
drawn with certainty. Whoever, for example, deter- 
mines to study the philology of the Hebrew language 
for himself, must himself discover by means of the 
helps that can be employed, its spirit, its character, its 
peculiarities, the significations of its words, the very 
characteristics of its figures ; thus he must draw out 
its character from the analogy of the other oriental 
languages which have sprung from it or are connected 
with it, and the meanings of its words and phrases from 
a comparison of the various versions which we have 
of the Hebrew scriptures, since these are the only 
sources which can supply such knowledge respecting 
them as may be confidently relied on. 

It is indeed true, that this knowledge has frequently 
been collected and brought together from those scat- 



100 METHOD OF STUDY. 

tered sources, in many works appropriated to such 
subjects, as in grammars and lexicons of the Hebrew- 
language; and therefore it might at first be thought, 
that it can now be derived entirely from these works. 
Such a course would undoubtedly save an immense 
expense of time and trouble : but then who does not 
perceive, that it is not a man's own study which is 
bestowed on these languages, but that he merely avails 
himself of the studies of others ! 

In this case, it is not our own inquiries which we 
institute into the spirit of the language and the signifi-, 
cations of its words ; it is nothing more than the results I 
of the inquiries of others, which we thereby assume as 
true, without having examined into their truth for our- 
selves, or being able to conduct such an examination. 
From this last circumstance principally, the study, 
when thus pursued, cannot properly be considered as 
an investigation of the subject for one's self, for this 
shows most clearly, that in this way we can only seel 
with the eyes of others. 

Thus, for example, we may find in every Hebrew 
lexicon a great number of words given, which are 
derived from Arabic roots, or from primitive words 
preserved in the Arabic language, the significations of 
which are principally determined by it. They may 
indeed in the lexicons be taken from this source with 
perfect correctness : but if the student has no know- 
ledge of Arabic, it is evident that he must depend 
upon the truth and fidelity of the compiler of the lexi- 
con, or of the first scholar who discovered the Arabic 
roots, and assume it as true, that the signification of 
the Hebrew words is correctly given. Whatever 
reasons or whatever presumptions we may have in 



METHOD OF STUDY. 101 

favor of this, still we do not obtain views of our own, 
we are merely trusting to those of others ; we must 
therefore always be without that substantial know- 
ledge which our own study and nothing else can give. 
The case is the same with the particular philology 
of the Greek text. With regard to the criticism of 
both the Old and New Testaments, the remarks are 
still more applicable. Here also we find in particular 
works most of the materials, which the industry of 
individual scholars has collected with unwearied pains^ 
on the various ways which criticism can pursue in 

| making her discoveries. The different readings of 
several hundreds of manuscripts, the full harvest of 
variations to be gathered from the old versions and the 
writings of the fathers, are contained in the collections 
of Kennicott and De Rossi relating to the Old Testa- 
ment, and in the works of Wetstein, Bengel, and 
Griesbach on the New. The student therefore has 

| nothing further to do but to form his own judgment on 
the value of the various readings, and to estimate the 
degree of their probable genuineness or spuriousness. 
But what must be the foundation of this judgment ? 
and from what must this estimate proceed 1 

Is it not evident that this must be historical infor- 
mation respecting the age, the character, and, what is 
drawn from these points, the value of the manuscripts, 
from which the collection of various readings has 
been made ? Is it not conjectures on the derivation of 
one from another, on the family-likeness of one with 
another, on the interpolation of one from another, on 
a hundred other circumstances relating to the country 
to which they owe their origin, to their transcribers, 

9 



102 METHOD OF STUDY. 

to the fate they have undergone, which must all be 
considered in forming this judgment ? This informa- 
tion and these conjectures, — on the correctness of 
which the most, or properly speaking the whole de- 
pends, — we must believe on the word of the collector, 
who collated and described the manuscripts. Yet this 
cannot possibly be called a man's own study of this 
branch of knowledge ; it is or it results in nothing more 
than a historical acquaintance with what others have , 
communicated respecting it : and that the acquaint- 
ance thus obtained neither does nor can always satisfy 
every wish, became particularly observable among 
our scholars on the appearance of Kennicott's edition i 
of the Bible. 

It is as evident then as anything can possibly be, 
that in this department of learning, sacred criticism, 
we must frequently yield to the pressure of necessity, 
and satisfy ourselves merely with this compendious 
historical study of the subject, because the real study of 
it for one's self is with thousands absolutely impossible. 

The helps which must necessarily be used in study- 
ing it in this manner, are of such a nature, that thou- 
sands can no more employ them than if they had no 
existence. The principal sources from which criti- 
cism must draw, the old manuscripts still remaining, • 
are dispersed in all the libraries of Europe ; they can 4 
only be consulted in the places where they are kept ; 
and thus to make use of them not only requires an ' 
expense of time and trouble, but also of money, which • 
can be afforded by very few scholars. Nothing less 
than the public support of the English nation placed 
Kennicott in a condition to accomplish his undertaking. 



METHOD OF STUDY. 103 

It is preposterous therefore to suppose that sacred 
! criticism could ever be a subject to be studied by all, 
or even by many in the manner above stated. 

With the sacred philology of our Hebrew and 

Greek texts, the case is almost the same, although 

there are some other circumstances which have an 

! influence on this subject. If in this department the 

J helps are not so expensive and rare as in criticism — 

| although they also are sufficiently so, especially in 

Hebrew philology — yet the greater part of students, 

who would pursue this branch of knowledge as a 

distinct part of exegetical theology, could not devote 

that time which would be required by such a course 

of study, as an examination of every point for one's 

self would demand. 

For example : — a fundamental and learned know- 
ledge of Hebrew necessarily comprehends an acquaint- 
ance with the other oriental languages, particularly 
with those which contain the most ancient and impor- 
tant versions of the Hebrew text. The greater pro- 
portion of these versions are only to be found in the 
Polyglots, which are costly. The other literary helps 
for acquiring these languages, those for instance to be 
used in learning the Arabic, Samaritan and Ethiopic, 
cannot be brought together without considerable ex- 
pense, and even then it is frequently difficult to secure 
them. But after this is done, how will a student, who 
in a period of three or four years must traverse the 
whole field of theology, find time to devote to each of 
these languages in particular ? 

A merely general and superficial acquaintance with 
these languages is of little or no use ; for the very fact 



104 METHOD OF STUDY. 

that they are to be used in order to illustrate another, 
shows that a mere grammatical knowledge of their let- 
ters, their forms and some of their words, cannot be 
very extensively applied. For this purpose a philoso- 
phical study of the spirit of them is necessary; a 
study which requires not months only, but years. 

Thus it becomes necessary for most persons to 
abandon all expectation of attaining this object. Hap- 
pily, however, this necessity does not involve an irrepa- 
rable loss ; for it may in fact be shown, that to study 
those branches of learning for one's self from original 
sources is, in general, to be considered as much unne- 
cessary as it is impossible. 

We have certainly every reasonable motive to place 
sufficient confidence in the results of the investigations 
which have been pursued on these subjects by scholars, 
who were able to devote their particular attention to 
this kind of learning. With respect to the probity 
with which they have given these results to the world, 
we have no reason to doubt ; although in critical dis- 
closures this is a point which must come into serious 
consideration, of which the deceit that was practised 
in relation to the famous codex Ravianus, by which so 
many critics were imposed upon, affords a very re- 
markable illustration. 

But that their investigations are accurate, that the 
way in which they have proceeded is right, and that 
the discoveries which they have made therein are re- 
ally true and worthy of credit, is proved from the fact, 
that although many persons have pursued these inves- 
tigations, and in some cases by methods of their own. 
yet in general the same results have been produced. 



METHOD OF STUDY. 105 

When Schulten, for example, determines the mean- 
ing of a Hebrew word from the Arabic, or when Mill, in 
defending a reading, appeals to the fact, that it is sanc- 
tioned by the Alexandrine manuscript, the student who 
has no knowledge of Arabic may confidently regard the 
signification of the Hebrew word given by Schultens 
as the true one, and he who has never seen the Alex- 
andrine manuscript may still be secure of having the 
reading contained in it; for Schultens was not the only 
man who found the signification referred to in the Ara- 
bic, and many besides Mill have examined the Alexan- 
drine manuscript, and found there the same reading. 

If therefore, in literature of this kind, we are often 
obliged to believe merely what has been discovered by 
others, without being able ourselves to ascertain the 
correctness of the discovery, it is still exceedingly rare 
that we are obliged to trust a single witness : there are 
always many, who pledge themselves for the truth of 
the discovery, and consequently make it the more cre- 
dible. Indeed we must rest satisfied with such evi- 
dence in a hundred other cases ; and we do satisfy our- 
selves with it even in a multitude of cases where we 
are not necessarily obliged to do so, No reason there- 
fore can be assigned, why we cannot and may not do the 
same, in relation to the knowledge under consideration. 

In this view of the subject, it might be inferred, and 
not without very plausible reasons, that it is a very un- 
necessary expense of labor and time to study these 
subjects for ourselves, were it not that we have so many 
grounds for believing, that a further use of the original 
sources will supply a vast deal more than has hitherto 
been drawn from them. Yet even this suggests ano- 



106 METHOD OF STUDY. 

ther circumstance, which makes it still more evident, 
that a personal examination of the original sources of 
this learning cannot be necessary in general or for all, 
and why this is the case. 

It is a decided point, that the nicer and more inti- 
mate knowledge of the language of our Hebrew Scrip- 
tures is still susceptible of very great improvement, by 
a further cultivation of oriental literature in general, en- 
riching ourselves with its abundance : and it is also as 
certain, that the criticism both of the Old and New 
Testaments may yet anticipate many very valuable dis- 
coveries, by still further pursuing its investigations in 
the road which has been opened for it with so much 
trouble. There is therefore great reason to wish that 
many more scholars would devote themselves entirely or 
principally to this kind of literature, from which so 
much may be derived. Yet we may confidently be- 
lieve, that the most important, the most useful, and the 
most necessary matter, which it contains, has already 
been brought to light. 

So far indeed has our sacred philology been already 
cultivated in respect to the languages of the Bible, that 
it can supply sufficient exegetical materials for a gene- 
rally correct explanation of the true sense of the sacred 
Scriptures ; and criticism has also already thrown so 
much light upon it, that it may with sufficient certainty 
be considered as secured in all important and principal 
places against interpolations not yet discovered, and 
also may always come to a probable conclusion as to 
the genuine reading. It was this that was necessary 
to be done, since otherwise interpretation could not 
have taken one step with security. It is this therefore, 



METHOD OF STUDY. 107 

which every one who intends to make theology his 
study necessarily requires ; but he requires nothing 
more. Since now he can secure this merely by an in- 
dustrious attention to the history of sacred philology 
and sacred criticism, the study of their original 
sources becomes superfluous to him, as soon as he is 
obliged to confine himself to what is necessary. 

By prosecuting this study, very much light may 
undoubtedly be thrown on separate and particular 
places ; but it is not either intended or allowable, that 
every one who finds no difficulty in the general, 
should immediately attempt to illustrate such places. 
Persons moreover will always be found, who are able 
to do this, and who may do it with propriety. At 
the same time, however, every one who is obliged to 
examine the whole subject of theology within a limited 
period, and who would not confine his attention to this 
particular department ; in other words, every one who 
must run through his whole theological course in the 
usual space of three or four years, not only may with- 
out hesitation dispense with studying the subjects un- 
der consideration from their proper original sources, 
but he may do so without disadvantage. But to guard 
against the possibility of being misunderstood, I would 
remark, that this assertion is by no means equivalent 
to saying, that the student may continue utterly igno- 
rant of this knowledge, and altogether disregard these 
subjects. It may even scarcely be necessary to give in 
detail a different plan of study that may, and in this 
case must be adopted ; and yet some remarks may be 
added on this point, chiefly in order to make it the more 
evident, that such a plan requires comparatively but 



108 METHOD OF STUDY. 

little labor, and consequently to make it the more pal- 
pable, that an indisposition to undertake this little is 
utterly unpardonable. 



CHAPTER XII. 

In the first place, with regard to the philology of 
our Hebrew Scriptures : if our acquaintance with it is 
not to be drawn from the original sources themselves, 
scarcely anything further is really necessary but a lexi- 
con and a grammar, in order in the shortest possible 
time to make such progress, as to be able to read and 
understand the text with facility. 

The language has in comparison with others so few 
rules, and these again so few exceptions, that any me- 
mory can retain them without great effort. Although 
indeed this cannot be accomplished in so short a time 
as the old writer William Schickardt assigned to 
it, who offered to teach Hebrew in four and twenty 
hours, and therefore called his grammar, which he had 
divided into as many parts or hours, a horologium ; 
yet in fact a vast deal more time is not required for 
this purpose. These rules are subsequently the more 
readily impressed upon the memory in the business of 
analyzing, which must immediately afterwards be un- 
dertaken ; and by a moderate degree of practice for a 
space of time not much longer than that occupied in 
committing the rules, this becomes easy.* 

The exercise of analyzing is generally supposed to 
be the most difficult, and therefore undertaken with the 

• Note XXIX. 



METHOD OF STUDY. 109 

I 

greatest reluctance ; in fact it is often entirely neglect- 
ed. But it is clearly impossible r ever to acquire a fun- 
damental knowledge of a dead language, without much 
practice in analysis. It consists simply in examining 
the forms of all words occurring in the language, by 
the rules of formation given in the grammar, and of 
discovering the origin of each of these rules. It affords 
a two-fold advantage : for while in this way the rules 
become more familiar, and their application easier, 
their correctness is at the same time more evident, since 
every form of a word which can be analyzed according 
to a rule, is in fact a confirmation of the rule. 

After the student has thus analysed a small part of 
any one of our Hebrew books, the first four or five 
chapters only of Genesis, for example, carefully exa- 
mining every word that they contain ; if he should 
read through the whole book, and perhaps a couple of 
books, or the Pentateuch, with the aid of a lexicon, 
drawing from this source the signification of every 
word with which he was unacquainted, and at the same 
time impressing it upon his memory ; he will have ac- 
quired almost all that is necessary, and all that can be 
obtained in this shorter method of study, for he will 
thus be almost in a situation to read all the other 
books of the Old Testament without a grammar or 
lexicon.* 

He also who studies Hebrew from its original 
sources, does not properly speaking acquire more know- 
ledge ; his knowledge is only of another kind. He can 
state the reasons for the rules of the language, from the 
analogy of the other oriental languages, on the ground 
* Or rather by the occasional use of thera. Tr. 



110 METHOD OF STUDY. 

of his personal examination ; but still the rules which 
he also has acquired are identically the same as in the 
other case. He can satisfy himself, moreover, from the 
usage of the cognate languages, that a Hebrew word 
must have a certain definite meaning ; but it is the 
same meaning which has already been introduced from 
these sources in the better class of lexicons of the lan- 
guage. The difference therefore, as I have already 
shown, consists in this, that the latter method enables 
us to make the very same discoveries which have al- 
ready been made by grammarians and lexicographers, 
and also to try the correctness of their discoveries, 
while in the former we must altogether depend upon 
these for our information. But this difference is not of 
very great importance, since there is sufficient reason, 
as already stated, on the whole to depend upon 
them. 

But if indeed the examination and learning of 
others are after all to be relied on, so soon as the ori- 
ginal sources themselves are abandoned, it may be 
said that, in this case, we may spare ourselves even 
this shorter course of study of the original languages 
of the Bible, and as well depend entirely upon the 
examination and learning of the translators. 

It would seem indeed to be a matter of indifference, 
whether we trust the word of a lexicographer or of a 
translator, that a Hebrew expression has the meaning 
attached to it by the one or the other ; for that the 
language has been studied from its original sources, 
may as well be supposed of the latter as of the for- 
mer. If therefore only one such translation is at 
hand, it would seem capable of affording us as much 



METHOD OF STUDY. Ill 

service, and at least as much certainty, as may be 
derived from our own knowledge of the language 
drawn merely from the grammar and a lexicon. 

It must be confessed, that this is not altogether 
idle. And yet this very objection tends to show, that 
such a knowledge of the language as may be acquired 
in the compendious method laid down, must not be 
represented as superfluous. 

In the translation of Luther which is in most gen- 
eral use among us, it is by no means the case that we 
may always depend upon the fidelity of the translator ; 
for although the service performed by Luther was 
exceedingly great for the time in which he lived, yet 
at present, the aid afforded by such a knowledge of 
the language as may be attained from our later He- 
brew lexicons, supplies us in many places with a sense 
quite different from his ; and therefore we may still 
expect no small advantages from the use of them.* 

With respect to more recent translations, as for 
instance, that of the Old Testament by Michaelis, it 
may be granted that this difficulty may be removed. 
But here applies the observation which has been made 
in reference to profane philology, that the spirit of a 
work can never be represented in so clear and lively a 
manner, even in the best and most faithful translation, 
as it is displayed in the original language. 

The sense of a writer may be transferred into a 
foreign tongue ; but of his spirit, of the form in which 
he represents his view, and of the nicer adaptation 
of his ideas to this form, and even to each other, some- 

* The remarks of the author respecting Luther's translation are 
applicable also to the standard version in English. Tr. 



112 METHOD OF STUDY. 

thing must unavoidably be lost, because something of 
all these is inseparably connected merely with his 
language. Whoever then can read him in his own 
language always possesses some advantage, and in- 
deed not a small one, over the reader to whom he is 
intelligible only by means of a translation, even the 
most faithful that can be made. This consideration 
alone ought to have weight enough to induce every 
theologian to obtain at least as much knowledge of 
Hebrew, as is required for that purpose ; and it should 
have the more weight in proportion to the facility with 
which this knowledge may be gained, and the small 
degree of time and effort that it requires. 

In the second place. The necessity of studying 
the original language applies to the Greek text of the 
New Testament for reasons which I might almost say 
are more numerous and weighty ; and it applies here in 
proportion as the interpretation of the New Testament 
is more important for the divine than that of the Old. 
In this case too, it is easier to draw our knowledge of 
the language of the New Testament immediately from 
one of the original sources, by which it may be sup- 
plied with the greatest certainty. 

This is, as was before shown, the Septuagint ver- 
sion of the Old Testament. For. as it is certain that 
the Hellenistic language is susceptible of much illus- 
tration from the oriental tongues, by the intermixture 
of which with the pure Greek it arose ; so is it equally 
certain that more light, which may be confidently 
trusted, is thrown upon it by that version alone, than 
can be introduced from all other sources. But this ver- 
sion is not so difficult of acquisition, nor so costly, nor 



t 



METHOD OF STUDY. 113 

so hard to use, that it may not be employed by every 
one, whose object is to learn the true spirit of the lan- 
guage, in which are comprehended the most important 
of our religious writings. 

It may therefore, without hesitation perhaps, be 
considered as the duty of every one, to acquire at least 
as much acquaintance with this version as with the 
text of the Old Testament, since the advantages to be 
derived from it are so abundant, and at the same time 
so easily obtained. A mere grammatical knowledge 
of the Hebrew text is sufficient, in order to make most 
of the idioms that distinguish the language of this ver- 
sion clear and observable. And merely to have caught 
as much of the spirit of the Hebrew language as al- 
ways communicates itself by such a grammatical know- 
ledge and depends upon it, is sufficient almost to show, 
how such a Greek language must originate among 
men accustomed to think only in Hebrew, when they 
would express in the former language those concep- 
tions which they had always formed in the latter. In 
this way a preliminary acquaintance with the language 
of the New Testament and of the Apostles will become 
so familiar, that it must afterwards as soon as uttered 
be recognized as the same with the other. 

A method of studying this subject thus offers itself 
to our attention, as natural as it is easy and brief; 
which although indeed it cannot be altogether called a 
study of the sources for ourselves, is still by no means 
to be considered as merely historical and dependent on 
compendious abridgments. 

Before the student begins his philological exami- 
nation of the New Testament, let him first read 

10 



114 METHOD OF STUDY. 

the Septuagint version, but in constant connexion with 
the Hebrew text. In this reading, as often as a pecu- 
liar idiom of the Hebrew language occurs, his atten- 
tion should be particularly directed to the manner in 
which the translator has expressed it. He should espe- 
cially impress upon his mind the form and the expres- 
sions, in which national and religious ideas of the Jews 
have been translated. In order to fix them the more 
firmly in his memory, it would be well for him to make 
a short list of them ; and with this preparation let him 
then read the New Testament.* 

This preparation will not only be attended with the 
result, that the student will not for a moment doubt re- 
specting the kind of dialect that he finds in these wri- 
tings, but it will have the still more important effect, 
that at the very first reading he will receive correct 
impressions respecting many important views, and this 
must have the most beneficial influence on his subse- 
quent proper study of interpretation. 

At the same time, it is also self-evident, that by con- 
tinued and repeated reading of the New Testament 
and of that translation, in part connected, in part al- 
ternately, the language of both may and must become 
more familiar, even their minute peculiarities more ob- 
servable, and the whole structure of the phraseology 
which prevails in them, better known. But as soon as 
this course has been pursued to a certain degree, the 
Concordance of the Septuagint by Trommius, and the 
Thesauirus of Biel, [or Schleusner,] may be used with 
the greatest advantage, as the principal and most ex- 

•Note XXX. 



METHOD OP STUDY. 115 

cellent works to aid in studying the philology of the 
New Testament, in almost every particular case, and 
in every individual word. 

When, by such a course, the student is in a situa- 
tion to draw for himself, from the richest sources, for a 
knowledge of the New Testament language, he may, 
with the less hesitation, make use of the illustrations 
within reach, which have already been drawn from 
other sources and collected together in particular works, 
with perfect confidence in the integrity of the collect- 
ors, and with the least possible difficulty. 

The illustrations referred to may be comprehended 
under two classes : those on the one hand, which have 
been drawn from eastern sources, and also from Jew- 
ish of a more recent date, as from the Talmud and the 
Rabbins ; and on the other, those which are derived 
from classic Greek writers, in order to explain the New 
Testament usage. The principal works of the most 
celebrated scholars, who have taken the trouble to col- 
lect them, have already been mentioned. These works 
are not very numerous, nor are they very difficult 
to obtain ; and moreover, the advantages which they 
afford, if a degree of accurate and mechanical arrange- 
ment be employed in the use of them, may be secured 
with an extremely trifling expense both of time and 
labor. 

It will not require the private industry of a year, in 
order to extract, as far as may be necessary, all that has 
been collected to illustrate the New Testament, by 
Lightfoot and Schoettgen, from Hebrew and Rabbinic 
cal writers, by Eisner, Raphelius, Kypke and others, 
from the Greek classics, and by Krebs and others, from 



116 METHOD OF STUDY. 

Josephus and Philo.* And since in the arrangement 
of what is extracted, it is evidently most natural and 
convenient to introduce every thing under the passages 
of the New Testament, which are thereby illustrated 
or explained, (for which purpose an interleaved edition 
may be used,) in a short time a treasure of philological 
notes may easily be laid up. When this is done, they 
naturally retain their useful arrangement, are suscepti- 
ble of continued augmentation with scarcely any addi- 
tional trouble, and even in interpretation they are un- 
doubtedly the most serviceable of all helps, and very 
frequently render all others superfluous. 

The facility with which this method of studying 
the philology of the Greek Testament can be pursued 
may readily be urged as the strongest incentive to re- 
commend it to every one, especial:/ as it is the only 
method in which a fundamental knowledge of the sub- 
ject is to be attained. It cannot be objected, that the 
acquisition of such a knowledge requires too much 
time, which ought to be devoted to other branches of 
theology; on the contrary it is evident, that in the 
other branches of theology, even in the most important, 
the advantages of such a thorough knowledge of the 
language of the apostles are incalculable, and that a 
vast deal more depends upon it than upon the language 
of the Old Testament. 

Lastly ; with respect to the limits, within which the 
study of sacred criticism may be restricted without in- 
jury, the following may be defined as almost self-evi- 
dent. 

It is exceedingly clear, that personal application and 
* Note XXXI. 



METHOD OF STUDY. 117 

practice of criticism are only possible in the case of a 
few, because the helps which are necessary for this 
purpose can, in their very nature, be employed only by 
a few. We must consequently be satisfied with using 
the discoveries of others, which, by the aid of some late 
works, can now be done with considerable facility. 

So far as attention to this subject is required for in- 
terpretation, we may begin with one of the smaller 
critical editions of the Bible, in which only the most 
important various readings, or those of the most im- 
portant places, are collected, without considering the 
larger works of Kennicott and De Rossi, or Mill and 
Wetstein, to be necessary. All that is essential for this 
purpose is, simply to obtain certain conviction respect- 
ing the genuine reading of those places which are ad- 
duced in support of doctrine. Here then it becomes 
necessary to acquire a knowledge of the various read- 
ings which are extant of such places, to draw them 
therefore from those works in which they are brought 
together, at the same time observing the grounds on 
which the value of each is determined. These may 
be found in such works, for instance, as Griesbach's 
New Testament. But those various readings of less 
moment, which relate to places of no great consequence, 
or do not at all affect the sense of a text, may without 
disadvantage be passed over in interpretation, however 
important they may frequently be for the critic properly 
so called, who often finds in them most valuable dis- 
closures respecting the character, the age, the derivation, 
and the family likeness of his manuscripts. It was there 
fore very necessary to form a collection of these ; but, 
10* 



118 METHOD OF STUDY. 

by one who merely intends to make use of criticism in 
order to pave the way for the more solid interpretation, 
they may be regarded as quite indifferent, and there- 
fore he may without loss omit the study of those larger 
works, the greatest part of which is occupied merely 
in discoveries of this nature. 

Although, from the nature of the subject, the student 
is thus far exonerated from the obligation of a personal 
application to criticism, and is allowed to limit his exa- 
mination to the most important of those critical trea- 
sures which have been brought to light by others ; yet 
there is one point from which no one should withhold 
his attention. 

It is at least necessary for every one to acquire some 
personal knowledge of the way in which criticism can 
proceed in making its discoveries, of the materials with 
which it is employed, and then also of the principles 
by which it must be governed, of the caution that must 
be used, and of the errors that are to be avoided. For 
this purpose, a foundation must by all means be laid in 
some historical information respecting the character of 
the sources which must be resorted to, the age, the man- 
ner of origin, and the characteristic properties of the ma- 
nuscripts, in which confidence is chiefly to be placed, 
the most remarkable varieties which tend to show their 
derivation from different families or recensions, and 
also respecting what determines the value and the uti- 
lity of the most ancient translations of the Greek text. 
This previous knowledge will enable the student to 
deduce for himself most of those rules of criticism 
which must regulate in the detection of interpo- 



METHOD OP STUDY. 119 

lations, and in the restoration of the genuine readings ; 
or certainly to form a judgment of his own with regard 
to their correctness. 

Such a course as that now suggested will at least 
place the student in a situation, to examine in some 
measure for himself the grounds on which, among the 
various readings of a passage, a critic gives the pre- 
ference to any particular one ; for although he is 
obliged to rely upon the historical accounts which he 
receives from the critic, although he must believe on 
his word that the reading is to be found in this or that 
manuscript, or is confirmed by the authority of this or 
that version ; yet he can now form his own judgment 
respecting the correctness or incorrectness of the opi- 
nion which had been drawn from the data. 

These remarks are sufficient to show, that every 
theologian should endeavor to obtain at least as much 
knowledge of criticism as is necessary for this purpose ; 
and the great ease with which this can be done adds 
weight to the obligation. In almost every introduction 
to the New or to the Old Testament, the most of what 
is required on this subject may be found. If a person 
wishes to go somewhat further into detail, he need only 
abstract one or two of the treatises on the principles of 
criticism which are introductory to Bengel's Apparatus 
Criticus, or Griesbach's works, and then it will scarcely 
give him any trouble, to add whatever may from time 
to time be altered — or perhaps only differently modi- 
fied — in the old principles by the discovery of new, or 
the improvement which such discoveries may have actu- 
ally made. 



120 METHOD OF STUDY. 

The subjects which have been stated constitute 
those branches of learning which are comprehended 
in this work under the name of sacred philology ; and 
they should be studied in the manner above mentioned 
by every one during his theological course of three 
years, and in this manner every one can certainly 
study them with advantage. It is evident that in such 
a course, success depends chiefly upon a student's own 
industry, and that even the direction of a teacher is a* 
most necessary only to give information respecting the 
literary helps, that is, the works which must be used. 
But experience gives still more certainty than antici- 
pation would justify us in assuming, that nothing but 

PERSONAL INDUSTRY, DIRECTED BY SOME WELL AR- 
RANGED system, can accomplish a vast deal in this 
department in a short space of time. 



EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY- 

PART II. 



HERMENEUTICS. 

CHAPTER I. 

The last branch of knowledge which belongs to 
the study of exegetical theology, may very suitably be 
distinguished by the appropriate name of hermeneu- 
tics.* The term exegesis,! taken in a limited sense r 
has been applied to it, and such an application of the 
word may easily be justified, since, according to the 
use of language, the very same thing may be signified 
both by hermeneutics and exegesis. It may, however, 
still more easily be shown, that, in the distribution of 
the various parts of theology, a distinction between 
these two should be observed ; or that there are rea- 
sons for considering hermeneutics as one species ot 
learning, which indeed belongs to a course of exegetical 
study, and is subordinate to exegesis. 

In order to place this beyond the reach of doubt, it 
is only necessary to develop with accuracy the idea 
which the term expresses, and to set in a clear light 
the object to which it is particularly devoted. 

• From Ip^vevoi, to interpret. Tr. t From s^iryio^ai, to explain. Tr. 



122 HERMENEUTICS. 

The general design of exegetical study, it is plain, 
is simply this ; to place us in such a situation, that we 
may be able to use the sacred Scriptures, wherein the 
divine truths of our religion must be contained, as the 
very sources of those truths, and from them derive our 
knowledge. Now, after satisfying ourselves, first of 
all, respecting their genuineness, their incorruptness, 
and their origin, the very next condition which is re- 
quired to understand and properly to use those writings 
is, to become acquainted with the languages in which 
they were composed. A previous study of sacred phi- 
lology is therefore necessary, although it is easy to see 
and still more so to experience, that this alone is not 
enough to enable us thoroughly to attain the design in 
view. Knowledge of the languages does indeed ap- 
pear to lead to it more nearly than any other. In fact, 
it is of itself sufficient, in many cases, to make us ac- 
quainted with the true sense of those writings, but 
not so in all, for there are very many in which some- 
thing else is required. 

It is possible, whatever writing we may be exami- 
ning, very often to understand all the words by which 
a sentiment is expressed, while at the same time we are 
unable to discover any intelligible sense in them. And 
yet oftener may we understand all the words of a sen- 
tence, and still not be certain of the writer's meaning, 
because his words may admit of various significations, 
and when taken together may give several different 
senses. Consequently, certain rules, directions and 
marks are necessary, to enable us to ascertain and de- 
fine what sense the author of a writing connected with 



LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 123 

e expressions which he selected, for this alone can 
be the true sense of the writing. 

It is this which makes hermeneutics a distinct 
branch of learning, and thus a particular part of exe- 
getical study ; for it is this which makes it obligatory 
to find out, examine and apply those rules, aids and di- 
rections of a higher character, by means of which the 
true sense of our sacred scriptures can without error 
be investigated and perceived. 

But before entering into the actual discussion of the 
question, whence hermeneutics must derive these rules 
and directions, and obtain these aids and marks to guide 
the inquirer, it may not be useless to dwell for a mo- 
ment on a preliminary observation, the immediate pur- 
port of which is indeed only to place the necessity of 
this particular science in a clearer light, but which at 
the same time may give most of the results in reference 
to that question. 

The necessity of hermeneutics is undoubtedly 
shown in the strongest light from the fact which expe- 
rience attests, that our sacred scriptures not only can 
be interpreted in the greatest variety of manner, but 
also that from time immemorial they have been so in- 
terpreted. All Christian sects, both those of ancient 
and those of modern times, have always known how 
to explain scripture in such a way as to elicit their own 
particular opinions ; and since their opinions are often 
contradictory, some of them must therefore find there 
the very opposite views to those which meet the eyes 
of others. 

Let it be supposed now, that each of these sects 



124 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 

m 
announces its determination to proceed according to 
certain hermeneutical rules. Although indeed this 
would afford no favorable presentiment respecting the 
confident reliance which ought to be placed in them, 
yet it would be a strong proof of the absolute necessity 
of establishing such rules as a foundation to act upon. 
For whoever is not conscious of having conducted his 
interpretations according to such rules, cannot certain- 
ly think of attempting to defend or to oppose the cor- 
rectness of an exposition. Now, there is not a single 
one of those sects willing to confess, that they have 
interpreted in a merely arbitrary manner, and conse- 
quently every one of them does, by this very circum- 
stance, allow the necessity of hermeneutics, but at the 
same time also every one of them shows very plainly 
what sort of hermeneutics is necessary, or what kind 
of rules ought to be established, in order to be useful. 

We ought, in one word, to have such rules as both 
can and must be regarded generally, as true and bind- 
ing. So long as such principles are applied as are ad- 
mitted by one party only and rejected by others, it is 
impossible to unite in the true meaning of scripture, 
because it is impossible for the one party to convince 
the other of the truth of their interpretations, or to 
show the falsehood of the opposite. But while this 
has always been attempted by each, even from the ear- 
liest periods, each has also maintained, that its own 
laws of interpretation are of such a nature, that they 
ought to be admitted by every one, for on no other 
supposition could a •wish to make the attempt occur to 
any one's mind. On other grounds also we know that 



LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 125 

each party is satisfied of this. Each therefore does 
certainly receive it as an axiom, that there are rules of 
interpretation, which are to be generally admitted as 
true, and that merely these and none others ought to 
be prescribed to hermeneutics. 

It might be foreseen also, that it must be very pos- 
sible to deceive one's self, either in ascertaining these 
rules, or in trusting too much to their generally con- 
necting power, or even in the application of them ; for 
if this were not the case, inquirers would not have 
been able to discover such various and conflicting 
views in the Bible. The true reason of this is imme- 
diately perceived, as soon as the source is named from 
which these rules must be drawn, and from which 
alone they can be drawn. This source need no longer 
be sought for ; for as soon as it is admitted, that the 
rules must be so framed, that they can be regarded as 
generally true and binding, only one can possibly be 
recognized. 

In a word, that which alone must be generally re- 
spected, and the authority of which must be generally 
acknowledged, is pure reason ; so that it is this alone 
from which hermeneutics can receive its directions, and 
borrow the respect which it requires. This principle 
must the more necessarily be allowed, as soon as we 
come to explain what God's revelation, or what the 
meaning of his declarations, must be. The man whom 
reason cannot tell, that such a sense and none other 
lies in a revelation, is not bound to take it in this sense. 
If then it cannot be proved that an interpretation of a 
passage in the Bible is agreeable to reason, or, in other 
words, that sound reason can find no other sense in it 

11 



126 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION 

than this, it ought not to be expected, that a man 
should acquiesce in the interpretation.* 

The whole art then, and the whole duty of herme- 
neutics must consist simply in this, to explain with 
reason, that is, to explain in such a manner as is agree- 
able to those general laws of nature, according to which 
the soul of man must always govern itself in forming 
its thoughts and conceptions, in conveying its concep- 
tions to others, and in receiving those which others 
communicate : or, in other words, all hermeneutics can 
be nothing else than unsophisticated logic applied to 
the explanation of scripture. 

It is unnecessary now to prove this. But the clear- 
er it is placed before our eyes and placed before them 
as incontrovertibly true, the more natural does the 
question become, — whether such laws of interpretation, 
agreeable to reason, do really offer themselves, and 
whether from the general natural laws of thinking 
such principles can be drawn, the truth, correctness 
and applicability of which can generally be perceived. 

Judging from experience, as already suggested, it 
would seem scarcely possible that such principles can 
exist, or else extremely difficult to discover them ; for 
otherwise, how could opinions, so numerous, so diver- 
sified, and even in part so contradictory, be deduced 
by interpretation from the Scriptures ? If true herme- 
neutics must derive its principles only from the general 
laws of thinking, or, in a word, from logic, hermeneu- 
tics can be but one for all persons, as is the case with 
logic and reason. But then all persons, by applying 
this one hermeneutics, would necessarily find only one 

* Note XXXII. 



FOUNDED ON REASON. 127 

and the same sense in the Scripture, or it is clear that 
they could not conduct their operations according to 
the same laws. This appears to be undeniable, and 
therefore it is at least no less so, that these rules of a 
reasonable hermeneutics, which are universally recog- 
nized as the true and only correct rules, are not very 
readily discoverable ; else, they would not have been so 
various as they must have been, if we may judge from 
the variety of interpretations which have resulted. 
Yet the phenomena, on which this conclusion has been 
founded, undoubtedly do often arise from a cause al- 
together different from this difficulty. 

The variety of interpretations and methods of in- 
terpreting which in various ages have gratified the 
fancy, originated much less frequently from variety in 
the principles of interpretation themselves, than from 
the various application which was made of them. 
There have, undoubtedly, been interpreters, who were 
guided by principles entirely false and unreasonable, 
and therefore their expositions bear in the very face of 
them the character of falsehood so remarkably, that 
the sound understanding perceives it at the first look ; 
but still, most interpreters, or certainly the greater 
number, proceeded upon principles altogether correct, 
and differed from each other only in the application of 
them, for which many qualifications are requisite, which 
are not so easily found in connexion, because they can- 
not be brought together without difficulty. 

This will show itself in the clearest light, when 
some of these principles of interpretation themselves 
are developed, which simple reason prescribes to her- 



128 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

meneutics, or which this alone derives from unsophis- 
ticated logic. Those only which are of the most ge- 
neral kind can naturally be selected, and consequently 
it will not be possible here to develop more than three 
or four, but these are of such a nature, that most of 
those which are more particular in their character may 
readily be drawn from them. But this development 
will most evidently show with what ease, on the one 
hand, these general rules can be formed, or at least be 
proved to human understanding to be correct and obli- 
gatory, — and at the same time also, on the other, how 
much the application of them requires and presumes, 
— how easily therefore they may be variously applied, 
— and how necessarily this must produce variety of 
interpretation, 



CHAPTER 



I. The first of all the laws of interpretation is cer- 
tainly this : to endeavor to investigate the sense of a 
writing or passage which is to be interpreted, according 
to the signification which the general usage of the lan- 
guage, or also the well known particular usage of the 
writer, connects with the words which he employs. 
The rule, in one word, amounts to this : we should 
seek, in the first place, the literal sense of every pas- 
sage to be interpreted, as it must be afforded either by 
the general usage, or by one which is peculiar to the 
writer. Bat why this must be sought first, is a point 
which need not be made intelligible to any one, for 



FIRST LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 129 

erery man's natural sense will tell him, which will also 
instinctively always bring him first to this means of 
exposition. 

It is indeed natural for every one to presume, that 
a man who intends to make himself understood by 
another, can use his words only in a sense which 
others also attach to them, or, if he uses them in ano- 
ther sense, can only use them in such an one as others 
will immediately recognize to be his. The reader will 
therefore take his expressions only in a signification in 
which every other man takes them when they oc- 
cur also elsewhere, or in that in which he is elsewhere, 
as is well known, accustomed to employ them. Let a 
man first investigate this with care, and in most 
cases he will find very little more to be necessary in 
order to determine the true sense of his author. 

This no one has doubted, and no one can doubt, 
who is possessed of a sound understanding. Still, 
there have been expositors, as will be noticed hereafter 
in the history of this subject, who have maintained, 
that different principles may apply to the Bible ; who, 
for this very reason, do not deserve to be refuted. Yet 
if all had agreed in this — if all interpreters had pro- 
ceeded on this first law of exposition, it would still be 
very easy to explain how the greatest variety of inter- 
pretations must, notwithstanding, be introduced, and 
equally evident is it whence they must spring. 

In the application of this principle all depends on 
the correctness and accuracy of our knowledge of lan- 
guage, and these can, must and will ever be exceed- 
ingly various. When an interpreter understands an 
expression merely according to the proper, and not also 
11* 



130 FIRST LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 

according to the figurative significations, which the 
usage of language attaches to it, what widely different 
expositions must he sometimes produce from the expo- 
sition given by others ! Another may indeed have a 
sufficiently full and correct acquaintance with the ge- 
neral usage of language ; he may know with great ac- 
curacy all the significations in which a word is gene- 
rally taken, while, at the same time, he particular 
usage of the writer is unknown to him : consequently, 
he does not know the precise meaning in which the 
writer is accustomed to use the word. How different 
then must be the sense which he finds, from that which 
another derives by means of a nicer knowledge of lan- 
guage ! And if again another explains, according to 
the pure Greek idiom, what a third perceives to be a 
peculiarity of the Hellenistic dialect, how remarkably 
must their interpretations vary, merely from this one 
cause ! 

Scarcely anything but this single consideration 
founded on fact, that in different periods of Christianity 
and among its different sects, the knowledge of lan- 
guage has been exceedingly various, is necessary, in 
order to show most plainly, how, in different ages and 
among different sects, such vastly diversified and in 
part contradictory materials could be found in the Bi- 
ble. All, or at least much the greater number, (for 
alas, the remark is not true of all,) had understanding 
enough to discern, that in explaining Scripture it must 
be the first care to understand the sense in which the 
expressions of the writers were in part generally em- 
ployed in other places, and in part by themselves in 
particular. They all perceived too, that, for this pur- 



FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 131 

pose, it was necessary to become acquainted both with 
the language in general, and with the particular usage 
of the writers. Most of them supposed that they had 
formed such an acquaintance ; but how did this know- 
ledge of language appear in certain periods ? 

Was there not a time, when it was thought that 
everything in the Bible must be interpreted properly,* 
because the figurative language of the east was utterly 
unknown ? Was there not another time, when expo- 
sitors would see no Hebraisms in the language of the 
New Testament, because it was taken for granted, that 
all which the Holy Spirit communicated by inspiration 
to the apostles must be pure Greek ? And was there 
not again another, and a long period, when men could 
find no other sense in the expressions of Scripture but 
what the doctrinal usage of language belonging to 
later centuries had connected with them, without a sus- 
picion, that they themselves and their age could have 
attached to them any other ideas ? 

The result is evident. It is equally evident that 
such a result could not but take place ; and moreover, 
it is now evident, and the reason is also clear, that in- 
terpretation could not make sure progress, until sacred 
philology was cultivated with more zeal and with the as- 
sistance of superior aids, with better taste and more 
learning. Only the philologist can be an in- 
terpreter. It is true, that the office of interpreta- 
tion requires more than mere philology or an acquaint- 
ance with language ; but all those other qualifications 
that may belong to it are useless without this acquaint- 

* Note XXXIII. 



132 SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 

ance, whilst, on the contrary, in very many cases no- 
thing more than this is necessary, for correct interpre- 
tation. 

The truth of this observation will be shown by the 
additional general laws of interpretation, which must 
now be adduced, in reference to those cases, which 
mere knowledge of language is not sufficient to explain. 

II. The second general law of interpretation is this : 
always to explain with a view to the spirit and mode of 
thinking of the age for which a writing was immediately 
intended ; or, to express this in clearer and more general 
terms, — that may always be considered as the true 
sense of the writer to be explained, which, either alone, 
or at least as the most natural sense, could be suggested 
by his expressions to the men, to whom and for whom 
he wrote.* 

When the rule is expressed in this form, the reason 
of it also is so clearly recognized, that no development 
can be necessary even to the most uneducated man. 
Every writer wishes indeed to be understood naturally- 
Consequently, he will not only always employ his ex- 
pressions in the sense which his readers will connect 
with them, but, in the ideas which he communicates 
to them, he will always be governed by their ability to 
comprehend, and will pay regard to their particular 
manner of forming conceptions of subjects, and this 
either intentionally, or because, as it is common to the 
whole age, it is also his own. 

When therefore a reader meets in a work with 
ideas which he knows were in circulation among those 
• Note XXXIV. 



SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 133 

for whom the work was intended, and were circulated 
in a certain definite form; when he finds there not only 
particular words and phrases, but entire representa- 
tions and series of representations characteristic of the 
age in which the work originated : he may confidently 
presume, that the writer whom he would explain con- 
nected therewith the same sense which they must first 
present to his readers, even if grammatical exposition 
could discover in his expressions another sense. Other- 
wise, he must undoubtedly have been misunderstood, 
had he in this way expressed thoughts different from 
those which his contemporaries would thus have com- 
municated ; and certainly no rational writer will ex- 
pose himself to unavoidable misconception. 

We know, for example, what idea the Jews in the 
time of Christ associated with the phrase, " kingdom of 
heaven." If then we were to take this phrase in its 
grammatical and verbal meaning, we should most as- 
suredly explain it incorrectly ; for we may with the 
strictest propriety, indeed we must, assume it as indis- 
putable, that Christ and his apostles employed it in the 
same way as their nation,* for this plain reason, that 
their nation would not have understood them, if by 
this expression they had intended to convey to them a 
different idea. 

Yet there are several cases, where we are compel- 
led to determine the sense of certain places of the Bi- 
ble, solely from some local and temporary opinions, cir- 
cumstances or prejudices of the men for whom they were 
originally written ; or are compelled, first to examine 
carefully what ideas these men could attach thereto ; 
•Note XXXV. 



134 



SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 



since, by an interpretation merely grammatical, with- 
out regard to those historical circumstances, no sense 
can be discovered, or else one which, on other grounds, 
is plainly perceived to be erroneous. There are in the 
Gospels themselves several allusions to national Jew- 
ish opinions, or to particular sectarian views, especially 
those maintained by the Pharisees, — to traditions and 
sayings of former times, preserved among the people, 
— to particular historical facts, which at the time par- 
ticularly engaged the attention of the people, — and 
even to proverbs that were probably in most frequent 
use.* 

In the epistles of St. Paul, several places may be 
found, where he argues as it were wO' 'dvdpwirov, from 
Jewish and Gentile ideas ; and again there are others, 
where he draws conclusions entirely according to the 
particular modes of reasoning pursued by those with 
whom he had to do.t 

If then we are wholly unacquainted with these 
points, we shall find in most of these places either no 
sense, or what they contain will be unintelligible to 
us, or we shall elicit representations which are so 
plainly at variance with each other, with the connex- 
ion, with the views and sentiments of the writer as 
known to us from other sources, that we must imme- 
diately perceive them to be incorrect. 

In such cases, it is a real pressure of necessity, 
which imposes on us the law, to have regard in our in- 

* Note XXXVI. 
t The reader will find some observations on this point, and on the 
doctrine of accommodation as connected with it in a subsequent 
note. 



SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 135 

terpretation to the mode of thinking of the first read- 
ers, and to what they could and must have understood. 
Even in the fact that such cases do exist, lies the 
strongest proof that this must always be done naturally 
and without any violence ; and hence will it at the 
same time be most sensibly felt, how indispensable an 
acquaintance with the spirit and with the history of 
the age in which our sacred writings arose, an ac- 
quaintance with the mode of thinking of the men, and 
indeed, in some respects, an acquaintance with the per- 
sonal circumstances of the men, for whom they were 
originally composed, must be, for a correct interpreta- 
tion, and one in which we may repose implicit confi- 
dence. 

But here, who does not again see what endless va- 
riety of interpretations must arise merely from variety 
in the nature and compass of the historical knowledge, 
which the interpreter's resources enable him to apply 
to exposition? If sound understanding tells every 
man, that in interpreting he must place himself within 
the sphere of the ideas and views of the original read- 
ers, — if moreover all had the intention to do thus, — and 
indeed, if all had actually done so, it could not readily 
have happened, that all should have done so in an 
equal degree. One interpreter, whose acquaintance 
with these ideas was intimate, must find them in many 
more places than another whose knowledge of them 
was only of a general nature. And there have been 
many interpreters who knew nothing at all of the lo- 
cal and temporary meaning of certain phrases and ex- 
pressions in the Bible ; to whom, in fact, it never once 
occurred, that the early Jews could have attached 



136 THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

other ideas to certain forms of speech than those which 
the literal sense of the terms expressed, and who conse- 
quently found nothing further therein but what was 
drawn out by this sense. 

III. But, along with this general rule of hermeneu- 
tics, a third must necessarily be connected, by which the 
application and the applicability of the second receive 
some qualifications, without which indeed it ought to 
be immediately rejected. The rule is this : in inter- 
preting a writing, constant reference should be had to 
the character, views and known principles of the wri- 
ter, from whom it originates. 

The palpable reason on which this rule is founded 
is likewise very easy to be perceived by a mind of 
plain, good sense. The character of a writer is, in re- 
ality, nothing else than a combination of all that must 
mark out and modify his particular way of think- 
ing, of treating subjects, and of expressing him- 
self. To explain the opinions and views of a writer 
from his character, is therefore in fact nothing else than 
always to go upon the supposition, that he has formed 
such conceptions as, according to the entire situation 
and all the circumstances in which he was placed, ac- 
cording to his own particular education, according to 
his personal relations, he could and must form most 
naturally : and who will not always do this of his own 
accord ? 

It is also equally unnecessary to show, why parti- 
cular respect must likewise be paid to his design, and to 
his principles, as otherwise understood. This indeed 
is nothing else than to suppose, that a man of under- 
standing will not readily act in opposition to his own 



THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 137 

design, will not, ordinarily, easily contradict himself — 
will not without some evident cause alter his opinions: 
— and who feels not of himself the reasonableness and 
even the irresistible force of this demand? 

Very readily, too, may it be anticipated, that the ap- 
plication of these rules in interpreting the Bible in par- 
ticular must often be necessary, and that very much 
must depend upon it. Hence also it is, that no inter- 
preter has ventured to abandon them ; only the appli- 
cation of them must be of the most varied kind, and of 
course the expositions resulting must unavoidably be 
equally varied. One interpreter may have formed a 
different view of the character of a sacred writer from 
another, or may have ascribed to him a different de- 
sign : and thus he would find in him ideas altogether 
different from those which would be perceived by the 
other, although both had been governed by the same 
principles.* 

Nothing can possibly prevent this, but as extensive 
and accurate historical acquaintance as can be formed 
with all the personal circumstances of a writer, and 
with all the local and temporary circumstances con- 
nected with his writing, united with a nice perception 
of the nature and operations of the soul ; which, unhap- 
pily, is not easily communicated, and is only to be com- 
prehended by one who has a susceptibility of such im- 
pressions. 

* Note XXXVII. 



12 



138 SCRIPTURE TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE 



CHAPTER III. 

These three general laws comprise almost all that 
can be prescribed to hermeneutics. Whatever particu- 
lar rules may still further be imposed, may at least with 
great propriety be drawn from them, or have their 
foundation in them. But if this be really so, who 
does not perceive, that sacred hermeneutics, or the art 
of expounding the Bible, may well be said to have no 
rules whatever, which are peculiar to itself? If these 
are the three great principles, on which we must pro- 
ceed in interpreting our sacred scriptures, it is evident 
that we must act in relation to the Bible just as in re- 
lation to every other writing, must bring out its true 
meaning precisely by the same means as we would ap- 
ply to any other book ; in a word, in explaining the 
Bible, we must do the very same thing which sound 
understanding and rational (which is also natural,) lo- 
gic always require to be done, in explaining every 
other book in the world. 

This is most undoubtedly the fact, and the correct- 
ness of this position may even be proved with irresisti- 
ble evidence. It was the most extraordinary of all pre- 
judices, which, in former ages, led to its denial, or at 
least prevented it from being openly asserted ; for not 
only is there no reason or circumstance that can be ad- 
duced to show the possibility of the contrary, but it 
may be proved on the strongest ground a priori, that 
the fact could not possibly be otherwise. 

Even the particular connexion which it may have 
with the inspiration of our sacred scriptures, the very 



SAME PRINCIPLES AS OTHER BOOKS. 139 

peculiarity which they may thereby receive, and the 
characteristic features whereby this may distinguish 
them, not only can cause no difference in interpreting 
them, and in the principles or helps which must be ap- 
plied in order to investigate and in general to ascertain 
their meaning, but it binds us yet the firmer to those 
principles, and secures to us with the more certainty 
the result, which we may promise ourselves, from the 
application of these natural means. 

The more certain it is that these writings originated 
from God, the more thoroughly we may be convinced 
that it is he who has inspired the authors with their 
contents, the more clear and definite our ideas respect- 
ing the manner of this inspiration may become, the 
stronger must be our obligation, or the stronger must 
we feel it to be, to interpret them according to the rules 
which we would apply to every other book intended 
for man's use; for God cannot have announced him- 
self to men in any other way than that which is adapt- 
ed to men. And the more certainly may we also ex- 
pect, by the aid of these general rules correctly ap- 
plied, to discover with satisfactory confidence the true 
sense of scripture ; which is not always the case with 
regard to a human writing. The ground of all those 
rules, the ground of the whole system of hermeneu- 
tics, rests solely and entirely on the supposition, that 
the author of a writing has thought according to the 
same laws, according to the same mode of reasoning, 
and also in the same order as other reasonable men. 
In human writings this supposition may not unfre- 
quently be erroneous ; for it is not every writer, who 
has always thought according to a correct mode of 



140 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 



reasoning, and in a natural order. But as it is impossi- 
ble that this can be the case with inspired writings, it 
is impossible that the principles of interpretation which 
are founded thereon, should ever lead us astray when 
applied to these writings. 

But, it is difficult to determine the limits of inspi- 
ration, and this difficulty is increased in proportion as 
we run out into particulars. In our own time, there- 
fore, the extraordinary apprehension, which once pre- 
vailed, with regard to the principle, that it is necessary 
to interpret the Bible like any human book, is almost 
entirely abandoned. There is one particular point, 
however, with respect to which an exception is consi- 
dered as necessary, and this has arisen from the some- 
what doubtful use which has been made of it by cer- 
tain modern interpreters. It is necessary, therefore, to 
add here a few remarks in relation to it, for the point 
is one of great consequence, on which very much in- 
deed depends ; and it is an important point, which, al- 
though first agitated in our own day, has already in 
many instances, and certainly in some not without de- 
sign, been involved in confusion.* 

In connexion with the second law of hermeneu- 
tics above stated, by which every book should be ex- 
plained according to the spirit, the mode of thinking, 
and the views formed by those for whom it was imme- 
diately written, the question occurs : does this extend 
to erroneous, and incorrect representations of the age 
which gave birth to our sacred scriptures ? or, in other 
words, is it to be presumed, that the authors of our sa- 
cred scriptures did themselves entertain the unfounded 
tNote XXXVIII. 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 141 

prejudices of their contemporaries, or at least have oc- 
casionally been governed thereby, have brought them- 
selves down, and, to express myself in the usual phra- 
seology, have accommodated themselves to these pre- 
judices ? 

It is easy to perceive how much depends on this 
question, for it were easy to anticipate, (and in our own 
time this has been brought home to us by experience.) 
what exceedingly diversified systems of doctrine may 
thus be framed, as the one or the other principle in- 
volved in the question is applied to interpretation. And 
on this account, the opposers of this accommodation, 
that is, of the opinion, that our Lord and his apostles 
were occasionally influenced by the erroneous views 
of their day, have been so earnest on the point, that 
their zeal seems to have led them somewhat farther 
than was necessary, and probably indeed somewhat 
farther than wisdom would have dictated. They have 
sometimes attempted to deny, what it is clear cannot 
be denied ; while they should have satisfied themselves 
with insisting on some limitations, which proceed so 
evidently from the very nature of the case, that their 
validity and correctness cannot possibly be doubted. 

The following observations in relation to this mat- 
ter may be sufficient to set it in its true light. They 
do not indeed by any means exhaust the subject, but 
they touch upon the principal points, which it is im- 
portant to notice in defining this question and in deci- 
ding upon its merits ; and thus, inasmuch as this is not 
the proper place for a full development, they may at 
least obviate some part of the mischief which might 
12* 



142 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 

arise from a distorted, half true, or partial representa- 
tion.* 

I. In the first place, no one need be alarmed, if 
he should hear it maintained, that in our holy scrip- 
tures, as well those of the New as those of the Old 
Testament, passages occasionally occur, in which the 
authors, in which even our Lord and his apostles, ac- 
commodate to the views of their contemporaries, and 
in fact when those views are erroneous. The idea 
from which, whether clearly or imperfectly conceived, 
such alarm may originate, and in some instances > 
^ias originated, namely, that the sentiment is in the ] 
highest degree unworthy of the Holy Spirit, by whom i 
those writings were inspired, can never in a general i 
point of view justify him, for in general it is incorrect. 
If it be not unworthy of a wise instructor, to bring him- 
self down to the childlike conceptions of his pupils ; it 
cannot be unworthy of God, if, in the instructions 
which he communicated to men, he should occasion- 
ally have done the same thing, in order to make the 
truths which, at the same time, he wished to convey to 
them, the more easily intelligible. 

Every shadow of indecorum is entirely removed, by 
restricting the application of this principle to such 
cases, as do not come within the sphere of those views, 
which, according to the divine intention, are to be com- 
municated only by a particular revelation, and thus, in < 
a word, merely to those things which, properly speak- 
ing, do not belong to religious truths. For, in order 
to find in it any thing objectionable and improper, we 
must either assume, that God must have instructed » 
* Note XXXIX. 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 



143 



men respecting everything without exception on which 
they entertained incorrect sentiments ; or, that he must 
at least have expressed himself correctly on all those 
subjects respecting which their ideas were erroneous, 
even with the danger of being unintelligible to them. 

It is evident, for instance, that if the sacred wri- 
ters, or the Holy Spirit who inspired them, had used 
perfectly correct language in reference to some points 
in their time generally misunderstood, for example, in 
reference to some natural phenomena, the true causes of 
which the knowledge of philosophy then prevailing 
was incompetent to explain; either they could not 
have been understood by their contemporaries, or else to 
these a new system of natural philosophy must have 
been revealed. But if the one would have been sense- 
less and the other without an object, as every one will 
immediately perceive, what remains but to allow that 
God must have come down to the erroneous ideas of 
these men, in order to make those correct views which 
were to be communicated to them, in part more intel- 
ligible, and in part more impressive. 

It is certainly then not necessary to deny that the 
sacred writers have done this, and that the prophets in 
the Old Testament as the apostles in the New have 
sometimes accommodated themselves to incorrect views 
of the people, to opinions generally prevailing in their 
time. What then should prevent us from acknowledg- 
ing, that the prophets and apostles did not merely ac- 
commodate to these views, but that they themselves 
also, at least some among them, did participate in them 
in common with their contemporaries ? 



144 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 



Their inspiration, whatever ideas may be formed 
respecting it, and how far soever it may be extended, 
cannot possibly prove anything to the contrary, for it 
can in no way be injured by it. We cannot surely 
suppose, that the authors of the New Testament were 
of themselves so far in advance of their own age, as to 
have always possessed, on points not connected with 
religion, sounder, clearer and more refined ideas than 
their contemporaries ? In that case it would be neces- 
sary to suppose, that the power of inspiration was gov- 
erned in its operations by the ability of the men on whom 
it acted to comprehend, as our Lord so evidently was 
in the oral instruction which he imparted to his disci- 
ples. They were not taught all things at once, they 
were not at once freed from all their prejudices. Why 
then, notwithstanding their inspiration, may not traces 
of these be still found in their writings 1 

But it is unnecessary to ask, whether this may be 
supposed, since it is impossible not to see that the fact 
is really so. It cannot, by any construction but the 
most unnatural, be concealed, that our sacred writers, 
and even Christ himself and his apostles, did occa- 
sionally direct their instructions in reference to imper- 
fect views current in their age, and even to views not 
strictly correct; and as little can it be concealed, 
that the latter, the apostles, sometimes brought forward 
these views as their own, which most probably they 
held in common with their age. 

To prove this it is not necessary to resort to exam- 
ples taken from the Old Testament. Are there not in 
the discourses of our Lord himself instances of the 
first which are altogether irresistible, and with regard 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 145 

to the last, have we not the most definite testimonies of 
the apostles themselves ? 

For example, when Jesus says to the Jews, in Matt, 
xii. 27 : " if I, according to your charge, cast out the 
demons through Beelzebub, through whom do your 
sons cast them out ?" it is quite evident, that he rea- 
sons from the common opinion entertained by the 
Jews, as if the exorcists, who abounded among them, 
did really possess and exercise the power of expelling 
demons. But who supposes, that any real truth lies 
at the bottom of this common conceit ? And in the 
same conversation, when in v. 44, 45, he speaks of a 
demon going out of a man, wandering in waste and 
dry places, and afterwards taking along with him 
seven others, and again returning to his old habitation, 
it is abundantly evident, that he took all these particu- 
lars from the Jewish doctrine respecting demons, 
which, as we learn from the apocryphal book of To- 
bit, ch. viii, had long been received among them : and 
who can persuade himself to admit these particulars 
as truths of the world of spirits authenticated and es- 
tablished by him ? And when in John iii. 8, he says 
to Nicodemus, respecting the wind, "thou canst not 
tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth," it cannot 
be doubted, that the very inadequate, imperfect and er- 
roneous acquaintance with the operations of nature 
which then prevailed in his nation is assumed as the 
standard. 

It were easy to adduce more instances to the same 
purpose, but these are quite sufficient to show (at least 
in general) beyond all doubt, that there are places in 
the New Testament, where our Lord accommodates 



146 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 



his teaching or language to the prevalent erroneous 
views. That the apostles themselves cherished some 
of these errors, requires no further proof than what is 
afforded by their history and education, as delineated 
in their own writings. It is only necessary to consi- 
der, who these men were, previously to their becoming 
associated with Christ and under his particular direc- 
tion. We may see even in their history, how much 
national prepossession, how many opinions entertained 
by the people generally, how many incorrect views, 
were held by them, even after they had enjoyed his in- 
structions during three years. We need only weigh 
this fact, how long, even after the death of our Lord 
and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, they continued to 
cling to their expectation of an earthly reign of the 
Messiah, to their attachment to the ceremonies of the 
Levitical law, to their Jewish peculiarities, and we 
shall find reason to believe, that, in other points, on 
which their master, agreeably to his design, had im- 
parted to them no particular information, their concep- 
tions were not clearer than those of their age and na- 
tion. We are not only authorized, but we are obliged 
to suppose, that, in points which have no connex- 
ion with religion, the apostles thought lor the 
most part, with their age. Consequently, it follows, 
as a fundamental rule of hermeneutics, that in inter- 
preting their writings, careful attention must be paid 
to this. 






LIMITATIONS OF ACCOMMODATION. 147 



CHAPTER IV. 

Together with these fundamental rules, it is ne- 
cessary to connect two others, which spring immedi- 
ately from them, and alone determine their applicabili- 
ty, as they must always lead us in making use of them. 
The first, their applicability, receives thereby some li- 
mitations, which are sufficient to remove all solicitude 
from the mind of the most anxious interpreter, while 
they are so firmly settled in the nature of the subject, 
that the most liberal cannot possibly avoid acknow- 
ledging their claims. 

II. Whatever reasons there may be for supposing 
that our sacred writers have occasionally expressed 
themselves according to the views of their age, and 
even when these views were unfounded, yet, in the 
second place, this is never to be assumed in any par- 
ticular instance, unless supported by clear and proper 
signs that such is the fact. In other words, it is never 
justifiable, on the principles of hermeneutics, to apply 
the doctrine of accommodation to any passage, unless 
it can be historically shown, that the passage does re- 
ally contain an opinion prevalent at the time, and, far- 
ther still, unless it can be proved from internal evi- 
dence, that this prevalent opinion is erroneous. The 
justice of these requisitions every man of sound un- 
derstanding can easily be made to feel, if he has no in- 
terested motive to induce him to avoid their force. 
Whenever a writer's declaration is said to be accom- 
modated, it is also necessarily implied, that nothing 
j really true is contained in it. But, in relation to every 



148 LIMITATIONS OF THE 

writer, it is proper to require sufficient evidence of 
this, and, in relation to our sacred writers, doubly suf- 
ficient ; otherwise, truly, it would be very easy to ex- 
plain away whatever a man finds in the Bible which 
is disagreeable to him. Those persons who are not 
satisfied with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, 
need only have said from the earliest ages, — 'it was a 
national idea of the Jews, to conceive of their Messiah 
as invested with the splendor of the Deity, as a person 
in whom resided the whole fulness of the Godhead, 
and according to this idea is he represented, by the 
apostles.' The opposers of the doctrine of the atone- 
ment might have spared themselves many very violent 
operations, which, in former times, they directed 
against several of those passages of scripture that treat 
of this subject, if the discovery had been made at an 
earlier period that all those passages must be illustrated 
from Jewish views relative to sacrifice, from the 
shackles of which the apostles or first Christians could 
not at once free themselves. With the very same fa- 
cility, all other positive doctrines of Christianity, which 
may be regarded as offensive, may and must be re- 
moved from the New Testament, as soon as a man al- 
lows himself, without further proof, to consider every- 
thing that shocks his prejudices as merely current opi- 
nion of the Jews. But does not now every man's 
common sense and feeling teach him that the very le- 
vity and trifling of such a procedure afford the strong- 
est ground for concluding, that, in cases of this kind, 
it is an indispensable duty to allege proof? 

Here it must be particularly borne in mind, that it 
is by no means sufficient to be able to show, that cer- 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 149 

tain representations found in the Bible, were views of 
the age in which the authors lived, or of the people 
among whom they had constant intercourse ; it is ne- 
cessary also to be able to prove their incorrectness, be- 
fore a man should allow himself to find an accommo- 
dation in the passages in which they occur. 

Will we, for example, represent the declarations of 
the apostles respecting the atoning efficacy of the death 
of Christ, as mere allusions to Jewish sacrificial views, 
which are therefore not to be understood literally? It 
is then incumbent on us, not only to show, that the 
Jews really had such sacrificial views, but also to prove 
that they are really puerile ideas, in which no truth 
lies at the bottom. Will we — to adduce another illus- 
tration — will we maintain, that from all those places 
in which Christ and his apostles speak of demons, no- 
thing at all can be inferred in favor of the real exist- 
ence of such kind of spiritual beings, because, in such 
cases, they have merely spoken according to the con- 
ceit of their age ? It is certainly then not enough to 
have shown, that a general belief in demons did then 
prevail, but it must also be shown, that this belief of 
the age was a mere superstition, an erroneous, false, 
and groundless conceit of the people. 

The cause which makes it proper and necessary to 
insist on this, is self-evident. An opinion is not al- 
ways and necessarily erroneous because it is popular. 
Among the views prevalent in an age and the stock of 
ideas circulating in a nation, there may be some inter- 
mingled that are true. Our Lord therefore and his 
apostles may have been governed by certain opinions 

! of their time, not merely because they were opinions 

i 13 



150 LIMITATIONS OF THE 

of their time, but because, according to their own con- 
victions, the views which they afforded were true, cor- 
rect and well founded. Thus, he may have spoken so 
often of demons, not merely because the people be- 
lieved in their existence, but because he believed in it 
himself; and therefore it is possible, that he has not, in 
this matter, accommodated to the popular ideas, and it 
must therefore be allowed to be possible, that by his 
declarations he has himself attested their existence, and 
that it was his intention to attest it. 

Undoubtedly there may be cases in which the proof 
above spoken of may be dispensed with, because it 
would be unnecessary and superfluous to adduce it ; 
(of such cases I shall speak further presently,) but in 
others again we can demand of the interpreter to bring 
the proof from internal grounds. As it is often easy 
to foresee the impossibility of satisfying this demand, 
its severity is proportionably the more evident. Who 
will undertake to show on internal grounds, that no 
being can exist of such a nature as the Jews, in the 
time of Christ and his apostles, formed in their mind 
under the name of angels and demons ; or that the fu- 
ture resurrection of the dead, which the Jews must 
have expected from their Messiah, and the apostles 
certainly did expect from Christ, can never take place? 
Most undoubtedly, the fact, that the Jews believed the i 
one and the other, involves no reason why we should 
also admit them. Nothing but the certainty that they e 
had been instructed in them by a divine revelation can t 
make them obligatory on us ; and hence it might ap- ' 
pear to be sufficient, if, in relation to points of this i 
kind, it were barely stated, that respecting them we are 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 151 

destitute of certainty. Yet, when the theologian, who 
intends to form a system the parts of which are pro- 
perly connected insists upon this, that the testimony of 
our Lord and his apostles must sufficiently supply 
this want, or rather, give to us this certainty ; when he 
urges this consideration, that these views of the Jewish 
people, which it is freely granted no evidence either 
external or internal could otherwise make credible to 
us, have been established by the authority of Christ, 
and on this account alone must be admitted by us as 
true, since we are as little able on internal grounds to 
reject as to admit them ; what will the interpreter al- 
lege on the other hand ? He will not venture to say 
to him again, that Christ, by apparently establishing 
this idea of the people, has merely come down to the 
prejudices of his age, for this is the very point which 
his opponent denies. And how can he oblige him to 
concede it, but by proving to him, that in such decla- 
rations of Christ an accommodation must necessarily 
be admitted, because the opinions apparently establish- 
ed by him are of such a kind, that it is impossible he 
could have really intended to establish them ; that is in 
one word, by showing him, on internal grounds, the 
incorrectness of the opinions ? 

Thus is it certain beyond all doubt, that, in some 
cases at least, an accommodation never can with per- 
fect security be admitted, since it cannot be previously 
determined, that the representation, in reference to 
which the accommodation is to be applied, was both 
an opinion, really prevailing at the time, and also an er- 
1 roneous opinion. But now it were easy to anticipate 
I from this, how much the principle of accommodation, by 



152 LIMITATIONS OF THE 

this single demand, must lose of the dangerous charac- 
ter which at first view it would seem to possess. It 
may be confidently said, that there are not many cases 
in relation to which those necessary previous proofs 
can be brought with suitable point, unless a man will 
help or rather deceive himself with mere conjectures. 
This last has, in fact, already been done among us 
often enough, since it has been regarded as the proper 
business of a newly invented higher criticism, to 
trace out, by the aid of the history and spirit of the 
age from which our sacred scriptures have come down 
to us, whatever may have been merely the common 
sentiments of the times. Yet, as it is easy to see, that* 
this higher criticism, however good may be the inten- 
tion of its advocates, but too often can produce nothing 
better than conjectures, since so few historical monu- 
ments of that age remain ; so is it also easy to per- 
ceive, that from the nature of the subject mere conjec- 
ture can determine nothing in relation to it, or can only 
determine with an interpreter, whose inclination to de- 
termine has already been formed. Only let the prin- 
ciple above stated be assumed and applied, and no one 
need apprehend, that the method of interpretation un- 
der review can easily be abused to the injury of reli- 
gion. 

III. Yet all the doubt, which would seem to attach 
to this point, is removed by subjecting it, in the third 
place, to a farther limitation, the reasonableness of 
which is also as evident to common sense as the pre- 
ceding. 

It may indeed be supposed, that our Lord and his 
apostles were sometimes influenced by the erroneous 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 



153 



views of their age, but — this is the limitation — it must 
not be supposed any farther than is consistent with 
their character, their design, and also their views, 
either as declared by themselves, or otherwise known 
with certainty. It has already been stated, as one of 
the fundamental rules of hermeneutics, that, in the in- 
terpretation of every writing, constant reference must 
be had to the character and intention of the writer. 
The present limitation can therefore in reality add no- 
thing more than this, that in no case should these 
rules be at all transgressed ; but the claim to this re- 
quisition is certainly as evident in the cases where an 
interpretation founded on accommodation, and one co- 
incident with the design or character of the writer, 
appear to come into collision, as it is in all others. 

But we must suppose, and we are justified in sup- 
posing, that an intelligent teacher or writer will never 
come down to the erroneous views of the men for 
whom he is laboring, below what is not derogatory to 
his character and opposed to his design. As often 
therefore as it can be shown, that by an assertion or 
declaration he would have injured the one or the other, 
if he had been governed in making it by a condescend- 
ing adaptation to error, it is necessary to maintain, 
that no accommodation, but a real declaration of his 
own convictions is to be found there. 

With respect to this fundamental limitation itself, 
we shall not be required to contend with any one ; but 
on the other hand, we must acknowledge, that it is not 
very easy to lay down general fixed principles, accord- 
ing to which it may always be infallibly determined, 
J whether such an economical method of interpretation is 

13* 



154 LIMITATIONS OF THE 

consistent or not with the character and design of a 
writer. Probably indeed none can be given, which do 
not admit and require in particular cases some excep- 
tions, limitations and modifications, arising from the 
character of the particular case. It is necessary, there- 
fore, almost in every individual instance, to form a 
judgment for one's self : indeed, in some of those cases 
which relate to determining the '»»0os, or the agreement 
of an alleged accommodation with the character of the 
writer, the moral feeling of the interpreter will always 
claim an influence, which cannot be made uniform by 
any rules.* These difficulties apply, in a full degree, 
to our sacred writers, and even to the declarations oft 
our Lord and his apostles ; for the most natural rule to 
decide by which is applicable to them, that which arises 
from their entirely peculiar character, cannot itself be 
actually applied half so easily as at first view might be 
supposed. This rule seems to result from the most 
natural supposition, that Christ and his apostles, at the 
least in whatever belonged to the religious instruction 
which they intended to impart to the world, never could 
accommodate to the views of their age, because this 
would have been in direct opposition to their design. 
But who does not feel, that closer and more accurate 
fixed principles are necessary, respecting what must 
belong to that religious instruction, and that a man 
must, above all things, be thoroughly satisfied with 
these principles, before he can with complete confi- 
dence apply the rules which are founded on them. 

What has been said may serve to mark out the chief 
points at least, on the accurate determination and ad- 

♦ Note XL. 



DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 155 

justment of which still depend the laws, by which her- 
meneutics must be governed in such conflicting cases, in 
fact, on which alone it can be governed with certainty.* 



chapter v. 



The history of this branch of knowledge, and of 
the manner in which it has been treated from the ear- 
liest ages, may very well be comprised in a short com- 
pass. But this is not the case with its literature, which 
is exceedingly rich. Still, a preliminary sketch of its 
history, although short, will be of use in order to faci- 
litate a choice among the principal literary works be- 
longing to this department, which, in a treatise of this 
kind, it is necessary to give. 

The history of hermeneutics may most suitably be 
divided into seven periods of time, which although 
of very unequal lengths are yet distinguished by prin- 
ciples of interpretation peculiar to each, or at least 
by appropriate methods of exposition very observa- 
bly varying from the others. The characteristic 
traits of these methods and of these principles, impress 
upon the exegetical works which we have of each of 
these periods, such marks of discrimination not to be 
misunderstood, that, with regard to most of them, it is 
unnecessary to inquire after any other marks in order 
to ascertain the time to which they belong. 

I. In the first two centuries it was hardly possible for 
the church to have any other principles of exposition than 
those which the early Christians had in part brought over 

* Note XLI. 



156 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 

with them from Judaism, and in part received from the 
Jews. Those Christians who were properly Jewish 
could have no other ; and those who were converted 
to Christianity from Heathenism could not think of 
originating others for themselves, for as along with the 
Christian religion they received the holy scriptures of 
the Jews, it was natural that they should consider it as 
incumbent on them to receive also the principles, ac- 
cording to which they had hitherto been explained by j 
the Jews and their teachers. These principles are 
very well known. They amount to this : that although 
the words of scripture are to be explained according 
to the usage of language, yet frequently their gramma- 
tical sense is the least important, and that almost all 
that they contain is allegory, or type, or prophecy. 

Many circumstances conspired to encourage the 
early fathers, who were possessed of some learning, 
to adopt this extraordinary method of interpretation. 
They saw that even the apostle Paul, in some of his 
epistles, where he was obliged to contend with Jewish 
Christians, had availed himself of it, as, for instance, 
in that to the Galatians, and thus they considered 
themselves as sufficiently authorized, not attending to 
the peculiar circumstances in which the apostle was 
placed, and to the particular object which he had in 
view. They were themselves incompetent to discover 
a better method of interpretation, because the greatest 
part of them were altogether unacquainted with the 
Hebrew language. But what principally recommend- 
ed this method to them was, that, in contending with 
the opponents of Christianity among the Jews, they 
were able to derive from it most important advantage 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 157 

for their opinions. By the aid which it afforded they 
were able to point out to the Jews, a multitude of pro- 
phecies in the Old Testament relating to Christ, the 
literal accomplishment of which could be shown with- 
out any trouble, to illustrate a multitude of types in it, 
the corresponding antitypes to which were to be found 
without difficulty in his history. It was therefore no 
wonder, that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of 
Alexandria, were so much captivated by this mode of 
exposition, as not only not to observe how insecure, 
unsteady and deceptive it is, but to find in it their chief 
advantages.* 

II. But, in the commencement of the third century, 
a happier period for hermeneutics was introduced by 
Origen, not so much by giving his contemporaries rules 
for an improved interpretation, as by exhibiting to them 
an example of improvement. It was, of course, im- 
possible even for Origen at once to break loose from 
the old allegorizing method of interpretation. His 
acuteness and perspicacity pointed out to him in the 
Bible frequent allegories and types, which no man be- 
fore him had discovered. He also sometimes inten- 
tionally availed himself of this allegorical method of 
interpretation, in order to oppose with the more effect 
certain crude opinions of his age, founded on an inter- 
pretation entirely literal ; as, for example, the gross re- 
presentation of a resurrection of the flesh and an earthly 
reign of Christ during a thousand years, which in the 
second century was extensively prevalent.! Some of 
his pupils and admirers afterwards carried this point 
still further; and hence it was, that, subsequently, 
•Note XLII. tNoteXLIIL 



158 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 



when errors and heresies began to be discovered in 
the writings of this most extraordinary man, he was 
subjected to the reproach of having been the inventor, 
or at least the greatest promoter of the allegorizing sys- 
tem of interpretation. 

But this reproach is in a high degree unmerited. 
If even Origen could not altogether free himself from the 
tendency of his age, yet it was this very man, who often 
enough and pointedly enough insisted, that interpreta- 
tion should always be founded on the grammatical sense 
of the words ; that in ascertaining this sense, the usage 
of language should always first be consulted ; and that, 
until this can afford no suitable meaning, entirely cor- 
responding with the connexion and views of the wri- 
ter, or in unison with his declarations as elsewhere ex- 
pressed, no allegorical, typical or spiritual signification 
can properly be resorted to. He it was, who pointed 
out to his contemporaries the method of correcting the 
grammatical and historical sense of scripture with a 
typical and allegorical one ; a method, which undoubt- 
edly was afterwards much abused. By these means 
he taught them most impressively, that acquaintance 
with language and with history is necessary in every 
case in order to secure a correct interpretation, and by 
these means alone did he perform a service with regard 
to hermeneutics, which entitled him to the thanks of 
all succeeding ages.* 

III. In the period immediately subsequent to that 
of Origen, the effects of his example became very evi- 
dent ; for in the fourth century interpretation assumed 
a form greatly improved. This state of things was 
■ Note XLIV. 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 159 

chiefly owing to the fact, that now there were more in- 
terpreters, who had formed their taste by an acquaint- 
ance with the works of the old Greek and Roman au- 
thors, and the effect which the studies of them produced 
on their mental character, they were not able entirely 
to keep out of view, however willingly they would 
often have done so, in commenting on the Bible. This 
was the case with Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Isidore of Pelusium, and Theodoret, among 
the Greek interpreters of the fourth and fifth centuries, 
and with Jerome, Augustin, Pelagius and Cassian 
among the Latins. It is true, that in these authors we 
do often enough meet with allegorical and mystical ex- 
positions ; but it is at the same time impossible not to 
perceive, that they were influenced by a feeling, which 
always brought them back again to a more intelligent 
method of interpretation. 

Many of them, as Chrysostom, Theodore and Au- 
gustin, felt also, that it was sometimes necessary to 
lay down as the ground of grammatical interpre- 
tation, a particular usage of language belonging to 
the sacred writers ; they had even an indistinct im- 
pression that the particular spirit of the age of these 
writers must be regarded ; and they were not afraid 
in many cases to proceed upon the supposition, that 
by a judicious accommodation they had occasionally 
come down even to the erroneous views of their own 
time. 

We not unfrequently find therefore in the exegeti- 
cal works of these fathers interpretations of the most 
excellent and striking character, and it is to be ascribed 
to two causes only that they are not to be found there 



160 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 

in greater abundance. The one is, their very great 
want of acquaintance with the spirit of the old lan- 
guages of the east, a defect, which must have a most 
injurious influence on their interpretations not only of 
the Old Testament, but also of the New. The other 
cause is to be found in the unhappy controversies, 
which were carried on during those periods, in such 
vexatious number, and with such scandalous warmth. 
In these cases, it became too much the practice, to al- 
low themselves to modify their interpretation accord- 
ing to the convenience of their polemics ; that is to 
say, to explain the Bible in such a manner as was best 
adapted to advance the interest of the various opinions 
which they defended. Even the best and most acute 
writers among the fathers of those times, as Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, (for the polemic authors, Jerome and 
Augustin, are quite out of the question,) could not 
entirely guard against the fault of sometimes finding 
in the Bible merely what would serve to support their 
opinions, and of rinding it there simply because they 
required it for that purpose : an evil, which in the fol- 
lowing: ages became still worse. 

IV. It may be said with truth, that the whole peri- 
od from the seventh to the sixteenth century was des- 
titute of hermeneutics, merely for this reason, that it 
was by the polemics of the times completely subjected 
to the yoke of doctrinal divinity. The truths, which 
it was thought proper to find in the Bible, were now 
brought into a system, which the church by her autho- 
rity and influence had frequently declared to be the 
only true one. No man therefore ventured to find any 
thing further in the Bible, which was not adapted to 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS 161 

this system, and still less any thing which stood in op- 
position to it. 

In these circumstances, it might be considered the 
wisest course that could be adopted, to abandon all idea 
of originality, and be contented with collecting the in- 
terpretations of the ancient fathers, on which the church 
had impressed the stamp of orthodoxy ; and then it 
could not be long, until circumstances became such, 
as to make this abandonment absolutely necessary, be- 
cause all ability and all helps for original interpretation 
were lost. 

In the ninth century all knowledge of history and 
languages had almost entirely vanished. The barba- 
rous Vulgate gradually became elevated to the impor- 
tance of the only text, and the glossa ordinaria to the 
character of the only commentary on the Bible, which 
was used and allowed to be used in the church ; be- 
cause these were the only text and commentary that 
could be used. And even in the use of the Vulgate, 
not only was no offence taken at the prodigious multi- 
tude of the grossest errors which had crept into it, but 
it was appealed to in argument and interpretation, with 
as much confidence, as could ever have been placed in 
the original text itself. 

Neither did the scholastic age, which immediately 
followed this, introduce a more favorable change for 
hermeneutics ; on the contraiy, it is rather to be said, 
that its fate became thereby the more unfortunate. 
The scholastics, indeed, were a class of men, who at 
first gave themselves but little trouble on this point, for 
to them it was not a matter of much consequence, 
14 



162 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTIC3. 

whether they could prove their opinions from scripture 
or not, since they were persuaded that the truth of them 
could be demonstrated from the principles of their phi- 
losophy. However, towards the end of the twelfth 
century, some extraneous circumstances led them to 
pay more attention to the scriptures than they had for- 
merly done, and consequently they were obliged to go 
farther into the subject of interpretation. 

Hence there arose successively many sects, who 
wished to draw the Bible from that total oblivion into 
which it had sunk, and who were willing to find things 
in it quite different from what had hitherto been usu- 
ally dictated to the people, and what they had been ac- 
customed to hear. Beside these, since the time of 
saint Bernard, an important party had been formed in 
opposition to the new scholastic divines, which, al- 
though soon oppressed by them, were not completely 
put down, but continued to maintain an influence prin- 
cipally in the monasteries, and on many occasions 
withstood them with great earnestness, which produced 
a correspondent impression. These denominated them- 
selves the party of the biblical divines. They assumed 
a degree of importance, as if they were the more tena- 
cious of adhering to the scriptures, in proportion as 
the others seemed to disregard them. They were the 
principal agents in bringing back again the mystical 
method of interpretation, in order to make themselves 
conspicuous in some way, and by these means they 
frequently acquired a consideration, which threatened 
to be dangerous to the scholastics. These theologians, 
therefore, were themselves reduced to the necessity of 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 163 

coming down to interpretation, which, at the same time, 
was subjected to the most lamentable treatment it had 
ever experienced. 

Equally incompetent to discover as to apply the 
simple and natural principles of an intelligent herme- 
neutics, they returned to the allegorizing system, which 
they pursued with far more extravagance than it had 
ever been pursued by the Jews. Whatever the wildest 
imagination and the most unnatural force could press 
out of a word of scripture, was given as the genuine 
meaning, without the least regard to connexion, design, 
character of the writer, and coherence of his ideas ; 
and for the most part adopted the more willingly in 
proportion as it was senseless and irrational. But in 
truth they could not easily produce any other result, 
whenever they attempted to expound for themselves ; 
since they had no knowledge of languages, no appre- 
hension of a historical sense of scripture, and not the 
most distant idea of a spirit peculiar to the age in which 
the scriptures originated. Still, in fact, this injurious 
treatment did not affect the scripture itself, but only the 
Vulgate ; for it was only to this version that they were 
able to apply their efforts of interpretation, and there- 
fore the mischief was not so particularly great. 

V. Yet, before Luther made his appearance, some 
minds of the higher order were desirous of putting a 
stop to this confusion, and therefore occasional exam- 
ples occur of a method of interpretation, less offensive 
to sound understanding. But the influence of these 
persons was not greatly efficacious until that impetu- 
osity of character, by which this reformer was led to 



164 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 

the improvement of so many other things, was also di- 
rected to this subject, and broke through the obstacles 
that opposed him. After Erasmus and some other men 
of the same class, he and Melancthon were the resto- 
rers of hermeneutics ; and this effect was produced 
principally by again bringing forward the grammatical 
system of interpretation, by re-establishing the literal 
sense in its rights, by granting anew to the usage of 
language its paramount importance, and by not grant- 
ing, or at least not seeking, either mystical or allegori- 
cal significations, whenever the other would afford a 
consistent sense, and one adapted to the views of the 
writer. 

Thus the way to a rational interpretation was re- 
opened. But it was necessary to set out entirely afresh, 
and therefore it became somewhat tedious, and the fatal 
impediment, which in the fourth century had arrested 
the progress of the understanding in pursuing this 
course, again but too soon presented itself. Luther 
was forced to form his new system of interpretation 
amidst noisy controversies ; he became forced thereto 
by the very controversies in which he was himself en- 
gaged ; and therefore it was natural enough that he 
should occasionally apply it in favor of them, although b 
in other circumstances he would have regarded this as 
an abuse. This most excellent man did, in fact, very 
often direct his interpretation merely with a view to his 
polemics : but this was done by his immediate succes- 
sors ; it was done by those divines, who, after his death 
and that of Melancthon, constituted the ruling party in 
the Lutheran church, so much more frequently, that 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 165 

this may be given as the discriminating character of 
our hermeneutics from the end of the sixteenth century 
to the beginning of our own. 

Amidst the hottest internal controversies, the Lu- 
theran system of doctrine was fully completed in the 
form of concord. This system necessarily possessed 
its own interpretation ; and as, by the general union 
in one symbol wherein it was contained, the system it- 
self became firmly established as unalterable, so also 
was of course that interpretation. Every dictum pro- 
bans by which a point in the form of concord had been 
proved or was thought to have1)een proved, must now 
always be so explained as to remain useful in reference 
to this proof; otherwise the prevailing theology would 
immediately complain of a departure from the system 
of doctrine. 

Along with this, however, it must be said, that the 
interpretation always proceeded on the correct princi- 
ple, that the literal and grammatical sense must first 
be investigated, and that this must be determined by 
the usage of language. This was the point to which 
chief attention was always directed ; but this usage, 
instead of being derived from the sources which alone 
can afford it with any certainty, from other contempo- 
raneous writers, from the spirit of the time or from the 
spirit of the kindred languages, from the characteristic 
formation of mind and mode of thinking of the different 
sacred writers themselves, and from comparing their 
works together, was derived merely from the uncertain, 
second Jiand source of doctrinal divinity. That is, all 
expressions were taken merely in the sense in which 

this privileged divinity had taken them, this was pre- 
14* 



166 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 

sumed to be the only true sense, and then, as was natu- 
ral, the same sense was always found in every place 
which this divinity had found there. 

The impropriety and mischief of this method could 
certainly be. the less observed, while so little refined I 
and accurate knowledge of languages was possessed, 
with only here and there obscure impressions of a his- 
toric sense ; in truth, attachment to the doctrinal the- 
ology even prevented the exegetical from being able to I 
strengthen those impressions, and from using all its ef- i 
forts to advance such a nice and thorough knowledge. 
When therefore, towards the middle of the last cen- 
tury, Cocceius, among the reformed divines, again at- 
tempted to find every where in the Bible allegories, 
types, tropes and prophecies, many of our divines zea- ; 
lously opposed the novelty ; but when, almost at the 
same time, Grotius and some other men of refined taste I 
and more enlarged views attempted, by penetrating more 
deeply into the spirit of the languages and history of the f 
times of our sacred writers, to withdraw interpretation 
from the authority of doctrinal divinity, a violent outcry ; 
was raised against them, and for more than half a cen- f 
tury laborious efforts were made to hinder the diffusion I 
of the light, which these men had thus enkindled.* 

VI. Hermeneutics experienced yet another change, p 
which at one time gave it a new distinguishing feature, J 
but which happily it did not long retain. With the : 
commencement of our century, the newly rising party, 
called pietists, began to devote themselves particularly 
to the interpretation of the Bible, because they consi- 

*The reader is requested to peruse, in connexion with these re- 
marks of the author, the latter part of Note XI. Tr. 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 167 

dered it as necessary, and certainly not without reason, 
to revive a zeal for the study of it, which had become 
very greatly diminished. But, unhappily, this party 
brought rather too much enthusiasm and too little 
learning to this subject, and this would necessarily im- 
part to their method of interpretation a peculiar charac- 
ter. This consisted in pressing each word of the text, 
until every idea, which by mere possibility it might 
contain according to its etymology, was forced out ; 
for, by this operation, the 'prsegnantes sensus scripturse,' 
to use their own language, and the holy emphasis of 
its expressions, which had heretofore been neglected, 
could alone be received in all their fulness. 

Had this been done according to a reasonable me- 
thod, some real gain might perhaps have resulted ; but 
from that which was generally pursued, any advantage 
could, in the nature of things, but very seldom be ob- 
tained : and, in truth, the effect must often have been 
injurious. These expositors might have endeavored, 
and sometimes with the hope of a very happy result, 
to determine the whole extent and the full emphasis of 
an idea involved in any word or turn of expression 
from the general or particular usage of language in the 
Bible, from which alone confident conclusions could be 
drawn. But, instead of this, they generally adhered 
merely to the etymological or grammatical connexion, 
from which they deduced the strangest conclusions ; 
without reflecting, that, in a multitude of cases, the 
conventional, and the particular usage of the sacred 
writers, could not have been so accurately directed 
either by etymology or grammar. 

If, for example, the apostles, by a Hebraism, had 



168 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 



used, h instead of sia, if they had written, "in the name 
of Jesus," instead of, " through the name of Jesus"; 
a peculiar emphasis was supposed to lie in the particle 
fe, expressly intended by the apostle, because if this 
were not the case he could as well have employed the 
word 6ia. When St. Paul says of Christ that he is 
iirepfyaidtu, (Phil. ii. 9,) the term must express much 
more than the idea of Christ's exaltation in general, for 
otherwise the apostle would not have added force to I 
the verb ty»w by compounding it with the preposition i 
tmf* But that the first instance is nothing but a He- . 
braism, and that with respect to the other, it was a 
very common usage with the Greeks, to employ such ; 
compound words interchangeably with the simple, and 
in the very same sense with them, these sticklers for 
emphatic phraseology would by no means allow, be- 
cause such a concession would completely demolish j 
the whole foundation of their emphasis. This extrava- 
gant trifling could not long continue, and indeed it [ 
would scarcely have lasted to the middle of our own 
age, had it not been for a time assisted by the counte- 
nance of some men, who in other respects were very 
reasonable and deservedly esteemed, as, for instance, the 
pious and learned Bengel. Yet this system was the 
sooner dissipated, when some other divines of decided 
reputation, as Ernesti, announced themselves in oppo- 
sition to it.* 

VII. Through the efforts of these men, and espe- 
cially of the last named scholar, hermeneutics came in 
the end to the form in which it is at present ; or rather, 
it received the principal characteristics of which it 
may now boast. 

Note XLV. 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 169 

It may with propriety be said of it, that, in the 
present day, by means of a nicer and more fundamen- 
tal knowledge of language, it can acquire much greater 
certainty respecting the grammatical sense of scripture, 
and by means of more enlarged literary investigations, 
can throw much clearer light on the historical sense 
than formerly ; that, at the same time, it has laid aside 
the prejudice, which had previously restrained it from 
paying sufficient attention to the spirit of the age for 
which those writings were immediately intended ; and 
that, in fine, it has seized and applied this same spirit 
in a degree far beyond what could possibly have been 
done in its earlier periods. 

It may therefore be given as the distinguishing 
characteristic of the interpretation of our own time, 
that it proceeds on the principle that each sacred wri- 
ter thinks and speaks according to the spirit of his age, 
and consequently must be explained according to 
that spirit.* This may also without hesitation be 
given as its chief advantage ; although it cannot 
at the same time be denied, that this principle has 
been occasionally carried too far, and that conse- 
quently injurious effects have now and then resulted. 
Such effects are principally to be apprehended, from 
the facility with which it might so often be erroneously 
assumed, that the sacred writers, in many of their de- 
clarations, in which the older theology found positive 
doctrines have been governed merely by views of their 

* C. A. G. Keil : de historica librorum sacrorum interpretations 

| ejusque necessitate, Lips. 1788, 4to ; translated into German by C. A. 

! Wempel, Leipz. 1793, 8vo. — The reader is requested to keep in mind 

| the limitations already laid down, in order to qualify the application 

of this principle. Tr. 



170 



HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 



own age.* It may also be a more unfavorable cir- 
cumstance, that no settled principles have yet been 
agreed on, whereby to define the bounds of this accom- 
modating method of interpretation, although the sub- 
ject had been warmly discussed for twenty years, when 
Semler gave new life to the excitement in relation to 
the scriptural doctrine respecting demons, and began 
by his 'oeconomicum dicendi genus' to explain it 
away. But notwithstanding this, we may probably 
anticipate more benefit hereafter, than we need fear 
disadvantage. It was not altogether unnatural that 
interpretation, in the first joy that it experienced in 
being freed from the fetters of doctrinal divinity which 
it had so long carried, should, with the feelings which 
this must excite, have gone somewhat further than ne- 
cessity or propriety justified ; but, for this very reason, 
it may be hoped with the more probability, that in 
time it will of itself become right ; and then even doc- 
trinal divinity will undoubtedly derive the greatest f 
advantages.! 



CHAPTER VI. 

After this brief history of interpretation, which 
gives a view of the most remarkable changes it has 
undergone, I proceed to make a statement of the most 
useful works in this department, and which in each of 

* Note XLVI. 

t The concluding remarks of this chapter on the influence which 
the principles of Kant's philosophy might have in producing mys- 
tical and allegorical interpretations, are omitted. 



WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 171 

the periods noticed have been principally used. To 
express an opinion respecting the particular character 
of these works, and to estimate their relative value, 
must be unnecessary ; for a mere statement of the pe- 
riods to which they belong, or from which they have 
originated, is, in some degree, sufficient for this purpose. 

The works themselves must be divided into two 
classes, to the former of which are to be appropriated 
those which contain proper directions relating to her- 
meneutics, which develop and exhibit the rules and 
principles of a correct method of interpretation, or in 
which they are individually and particularly marked 
out and illustrated, in their application to all the books 
of our sacred scriptures, or again only to a limited 
number. 

The second class will comprise the most remarkable 
and useful of those writings, in which these principles 
are actually applied to the interpretation either of the 
whole Bible or of particular books ; in other words, 
our principal commentaries, expositions, paraphrases, 
&c, of every age, on the Old and New Testaments. 

I. With respect to the first class of these literary 
productions, no man will expect to find, in the early 
and middle ages, any work in which hermeneutics is 
reduced to the form of a distinct branch of knowledge, 
and the theory of it drawn out in what may be called 
a philosophical manner. Of the period of the fathers, 
properly so termed, there are scarcely two works of 
this kind, which can with propriety be here intro- 
duced, and of the following, not a single one. 

In the four books of Augustin ' de doctrina Christia- 
! na,' we not only find some scattered observations, which 



172 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 

look like directions for a correct interpretation of scrip- \, 
ture, but in Lib. iii. cap. 30, he has introduced the j 
seven rules, so called, for investigating and ascertaining 
the sense of scripture, 'regulse ad investigandum et 
inveniendam scripturarum intelligentiam,' which are ; 
the production of a contemporaneous writer of the 
name of Ticonius, of whom we have no further know- 
ledge. These rules do not exhibit much penetration, ,, 
although they show the author to have possessed ex- i 
traordinary ingenuity. 

Another work belonging to this period, which has r 
equal claims to notice in this review, is a composition , 
under the title, Eicdyayf, m rasdeias ypa^ag, l Introduction 
to sacred scripture,' by a writer of the name of , 
Adrian, who was probably contemporaneous with 
Augustin, although the age in which he lived cannot 
be accurately determined.* But there is no reason to 
place, as is usually done, among the list of writers on 
theoretical hermeneutics, Eucherius, bishop of Ly- 
ons, in Gaul in the fifth century, on account of his ' In- 
structs ad fllium Salonium,' ' Instruction addressed to 
his son Salonius,' which has come down to us in two i 
books ; for this ' Instruction' does not contain, properly 
speaking, any directions for the interpretation of scrip- 
ture. The first book merely illustrates some difficult 
passages, and the second explains the Hebrew names 
which occur in the Bible. 

From this time we find, in the literary history of her- 
meneutics, a space of one thousand years, which presents 

* This Introduction, with some other writings of the same kind, 
was published in Greek by David HoESCHEL,at Augsburg, in 1602, 
4to. It has also been 
the London edition. 



WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 173 

nothing but a mere blank, for not until the latter half 
of the sixteenth century do we meet with any true and 
scientific directions for correct interpretation ; and, in 
fact, the work which contains them may, without hesi- 
tation, be regarded as the first of this class. The book 
referred to is Clavis scripturae sacrae, the ' Key to the 
sacred scripture,' of the celebrated Matthias Fla- 
cius, which came out originally at Basle, in folio, in 
the year 1567.* The first part, of which this Clavis 
consists, may be called a biblical lexicon, for most of 
the words and phrases occurring in scripture are ex- 
plained in it in alphabetical order. But the second 
is actually and strictly a treatise on hermeneutics, and 
one alike honorable to the acuteness of Flacius and to 
his learning. This is very willingly acknowledged, 
even by our recent exegetical writers, notwithstand- 
ing all the imperfections of the work, and is confessed 
by Simon himself; and the truth of it is more particu- 
larly evident, upon a comparison of this first work 
with the greater part of those, which, in the next cen- 
tury, were composed in imitation of it, by many di- 
vines of our church. 

Among these the following may probably be re- 
garded as worthy of particular notice. 

Wolfgang Franz : Tractatus theologicus novus 
et perspicuus de interpretatione sacrarum literarum 
maxime legitima. Wittenbergae, 1619, (5th edition, 
1708,) 8vo. 

John Conrad Danhauer : Hermeneutica sacra 

* Among the old editions of the Clavis, the principal is that, 
which was published at Jena in 1675, fol., with a preface by John 

Musjeus. 

15 



174 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 

— seu methodus exponendarum sacrarum literarum, 
Argentor. 1754, 8vo. 

Augustin Pfeifper : Hermeneutica sacra, sive 
tractatio luculenta de interpretatione sacrarum litera- 
rum. Dresdae, 1684 ; an enlarged edition with a pre- 
face by Benedict Carpzov, entitled : Thesaurus 
hermeneuticus, &c. Lips. 1690, 4to. 

Many of our divines, as Glassius, Gerhard, Ole- 
arius, and others, in the more comprehensive works 
which they composed, introduced whatever branches 
of literature belonged to exegesis, and particularly 
those relating to the theory of hermeneutics ; yet, in 
general, they merely made the Clavis of Flacius their 
ground work, or raised upon it those principles only 
which had already been developed in this work, while 
they were not always able to seize and express them with 
that nice precision, which Flacius had given to them. 
Notwithstanding, there are in most of their works 
excellent precepts for grammatical interpretation ; for 
the error of the hermeneutics of this period lay only in 
this, that the historical sense was too much neglected, 
and the grammatical interpretation depended on as- 
sistance which was too insecure. 

The characteristic marks by which interpretation, 
from the beginning of the present century, was for 
some time distinguished in consequence of the pietistical 
controversies, are particularly conspicuous in the fol- 
lowing works, in which its character was, in part, ori- 
ginally formed. 

Herman Augustin Francke : Praelectiones her- 
meneuticae — ad viam dextre indagandi et exponendi 
sensum scripturae sacra?. Halae, 1723, 8vo. 



WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 175 

Joachim Langius : Hermeneutica sacra. Halae, 
1733, 8vo. 

John James Rambach : Institutiones hermeneu- 
ticae sacrae, variis observationibus, copiosissimisque ex- 
emplis biblicis illustratae — cum praefat. J. Franc. 
Budd^ei. Jenae, 1723, 8vo. 

These institutions of Rambach soon became the 
principal work and manual of hermeneutics, and there- 
fore were not only very often reprinted, but also illus- 
trated by many divines with particular commentaries. 
Thus, for instance, Ernest Frederic Neubauer 
published, at Giessen, in 1738, extensive and profound 
illustrations of Rambach's 'Institutiones,' and Andrew 
Reiersen, at Copenhagen, 1741, Tabulae synopticae 
in institutiones Rambachii, < Synoptical view' of the 
same work. 

Among these works, others also made their appear- 
ance, some of which were expressly intended to oppose 
the principles of interpretation peculiar to the pietists, 
and others contained generally the theory of herme- 
neutics more completely formed. To the former of 
these classes belong : 

Valentine Ernst Loescher : Breviarium The- 
ologiae exegeticae, legitimam scripturae sacrae interpre- 
tationem tradens. — Wittenberg. 1719, 8vo. 

Martin Chladenius : Institutiones exegeticae. — 
Wittenberg. 1725, 8vo. 

Of the others, the following is particularly conspi- 
cuous : 

Solomon Deyling : de scripturae recte interpre- 
tandae ratione et fatis. Lips. 1721 ; and yet more so, 
the work of a reformed divine : 



176 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 

John Alphonso Turretin : de S. Scripturae in- 
terpretandae methodo tractatus bipartitus — Trajecti 
Thuniorum, (that is Dort,) 1728. A new and enlarged 
edition, by Teller, counsellor of the superior con- 
sistory, was published at Frankfort on the Oder, in 
1776, 8vo. 

The following works, however, were those which 
gradually prepared the way for the free hermeneutics 
of our own time, and which principally promoted its 
more general introduction and application. 

Sigismund James Baumgarten : Unterricht von 
Auslegung der heiligen Schrift, ' Instructions on the in- 
terpretation of the sacred scripture.' Halle, 1742, 8vo. 

The same author's Ausfuehrlicher Yortrag ueber 
die Hermeneutik, 'Complete view of hermeneutics,' 
Halle, 1769, 4to. 

John Solomon Semler : Vorbereitung zur theolo- 
gischen Hermeneutik, Th. iii. { Preparation for theo- 
logical hermeneutics, in three parts,' Halle, 1759 — 
1768, 8vo. 

The same author's Apparatus ad liberalem Novi 
Testamenti interpretationem, Halse, 1767, 8vo., and 
Apparatus ad liberalem Yeteris Testamenti interpreta- 
tionem, ib. 1773, 8vo. 

And, as the most distinguished work in reference 
to this result : John August in Ernest i : Institutio 
interprets Novi Testamenti. Ed. quart, cura Chris- 
toph.Frid. Ammon. Lips. 1792, 8vo.* 

In addition to what has been said, it is necessary 
to remark, that the proper epoch, in which our herme- 
neutics began perfectly to avail itself of the full liberty 

* Note XLVII. 



WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 177 

which characterizes it, is to be placed in the years 
1771 — 1775. In this period, Semler, on the one 
side, in his controversies respecting the scriptural doc- 
trine of demons, and, on the other, Teller, in his 
lexicon of the New Testament, applied the principle, 
that the Bible should be interpreted in the spirit of its 
age, in a manner quite novel, which gave a new form 
to our interpretation. It is sufficiently certain, that 
the principle, in itself, and also even as extended to 
the accommodating system of interpretation, which it 
was applied to justify, was not then originally invent- 
ed. It was even known and made use of by some of 
the older Greek fathers.* The Socinians had occa- 
sionally employed it with great freedom, and Grotius 
with great success. But even on this very account it 
had, until this time, been strongly opposed in our church, 
and in the year 1729 it was warmly attacked by Ram- 
bach in his Dissertatio contra hypothesin de Scripturae 
Sacrae ad erroneos vulgi conceptus, 'A Dissertation 
against the hypothesis of accommodating scripture to 
commonly received erroneous conceptions.' 

Hence it was that the application which the divines 
already named, and many others that followed them, 
made of it, did not pass without opposition. Those of 
Tuebingen, particularly, declared themselves very ear- 
nestly against the new accommodating system of her- 
meneutics. A dissertation by the chancellor Reuss, 
De oeconomia qua Christus in docendo usus fuisse di- 
citur, Tubing, 1773, 4to, ' On the economical method 
which Christ is said to have employed in teaching, 5 

* See M. Frederic Augustin Carus : Historia antiquior sen- 
tentiarum ecclesiae Grsecas de accommodatione Christo imprimis el^ 
apostolis tributa. Lips. 1793, 4to. 

15* 



178 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 

and another by Dr. Storr, De sensu historico scrip- 
turae sacrse, Tueb. 1782, ' On the historical sense of 
scripture/* contain" many admonitions against the ap- 
plication of this method too extensively and without 
sufficient scrupulousness, which do undoubtedly de- 
serve to be very attentively considered. Another more 
modern production, which appeared in 1788, 8vo, un- 
der the title, Bemerkungen ueber die Lehrart Jesu in 
Ruecksicht auf juedische Sprache und Denkungsart, 
' Remarks on our Lord's method of teaching in refe- 
rence to the language and mode of thinking of the 
Jews, by C. Vict. Hauff, Offenbach on the Maine, 
has the avowed design of limiting the abuse of this 
method ; and to the same point has the author of ano- 
ther work, still more recent, directed his attention : 
Ueber die Lehrart Jesu und seiner Apostel, in wie fern 
dieselbe sich nach den damahls herrschenden Volks- 
meynungen gerichtet haben, ' On the method of teach- 
ing pursued by Christ and his apostles ; how far they 
have been governed by the prevailing opinions of the 
people,' by Frederic Behn, Lubeck, 1791, 8vo. 
We have indeed reasons enough for wishing this prin- 
ciple to be limited within certain bounds : but, unless 
time, or some new direction which the spirit of our 
theological investigation may perhaps receive from a 
collision with the critical philosophy, should be able to 
effect more than has been effected by the attempts thus 
far made at limitation, there does not really seem to be 
much ground soon to hope for it. The most probable 

* This most valuable treatise may be found in Storr's Opuscula 
Academica, Vol i. pp. 1 — 88. It was translated into English by J. 
W. G. (Professor Gibbs, now of Yale College,) and published at 
Boston in 1817, in 12mo. Tr. 



COMMENTARIES. 



179 



reason for such an expectation may still be found in the 
circumstance, that this new exegesis cannot be carried 
much further than it has already been extended. 

II. The second class of hermeneutical works, 
which must here be introduced, comprehends those in 
which the theoretical principles of interpretation are 
really applied to the explanation of the whole Bible, 
or to some of its separate books. Here, however, a se- 
lection becomes the more necessary, in consequence of 
their immense number ; and for this reason, from 
among each of the various classes into which they 
again divide themselves, a few only will be given, ex- 
cept, indeed, with respect to the latest and most useful 
productions. 

It will not therefore be thought necessary to men- 
tion all those fathers, who have labored, in their own 
particular way, to explain the scriptures in separate 
works, in commentaries, or what are called paraphra- 
ses. Their exegetical works are also always to be 
found in the collections of their writings, which are, 
for the most part sufficiently known ; and some of 
those works, in which their interpretations in particular 
are collected, have been before cited under the name 
of catenae patrum.* 

* With respect to the characteristics, and the different spirit, es- 
timate and value of interpretations of the fathers in general, or only- 
some particular fathers, decisions, but exceedingly various in their 
nature, may be found in all larger works on the doctrine of the fa- 
thers. We have a work particularly on this subject by Whitby : 
de sacrarum scripturarum interpretatione secundum patrum com- 
mentaries. London, 1714. On the mystical method of interpreting, 
John Christian Coester has written : Dissertatio de mysticarum 
interpretationum studio ab iEgyptiis maxime patribus repetendo, 
Halas, 1760 ; and on that of Origen, John Augustin Ernesti ; de 
Origene, interpretationis grammatics auctore, &c. 

On the interpretation of many of the fathers, a course of histo- 
rical treatises de fatis interpretationis sacrarum literarum in ecclesia 



180 COMMENTARIES. 

Among the hermeneutical works of the following 
and of more modern ages, it is proper to mention those, 
in the first place, which comprehend the whole Bible, 
accompanying the text throughout with explanatory- 
observations. Some of this class are best known un- 
der the name of glossed Bibles. The principal 
work of this kind in the Roman Catholic church, is 
the Bible with what is called the glossa ordinaria, 
which was compiled as early as the ninth century by 
Walafrid Strabo, and soon acquired so much 
consideration, that it was quoted by the scholastics un- 
der the name of ' auctoritas.' It was originally a cate- 
na of the interpretations of many of the fathers, but it 
received from time to time considerable accessions, and 
in the more modern editions new matter was almost 
always added. One of the most complete, and even 
now most in use in the Roman church, appeared in 
the last century under the title : Biblia Sacra, cum glossa 
ordinaria, novis Patrum Graecorum et Latinorum ex- 
plicationibus locupletatae cumpostilla Nicol.Lirani — 
a Leandro a S. Martino. T. vi. Antwerp. 1634, fol. 

Among the commentators of the fifteenth century, 
there is one who deserves to be particularly mentioned, 
as he is distinguished in a very superior manner. 

This is Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila in 
Spain. His works were collected and published at 
Cologne, in 1612, in twenty-seven folios, of which his 
commentaries on the whole Bible alone occupy the 
first twenty-four. 

Among the works of this class, which were com- 

Christiana, has been published by Dr. Rosenmueller at Leipzig, at 
different times ending in 1794, in ix. Programs. t 
t Note XLVIII. 



COMMENTARIES. 181 

posed after the reformation by divines of our church, 
in other words, among the German glossed Bibles of 
which Luther's translation was the text, the following 
formerly stood in highest repute. 

The Bible, which bore the names of Weimar, 
Ernest, or, from the place in which it was printed, 
Nuremberg, with the title : * Biblia sacra — ver- 
deutscht von Dr. Luther, und auf Verordnung Hez- 
zo£ Ernest zu Sachsen von etlichen reinen Theolo- 
gen erklaert — erste Ausg. 1640 ; — neuste mit Ernst 
Sal. Cyprians Vorrede — Nuernberg, 1736, fol. — Bi- 
blia Sacra — translated into German by Dr. Luther, 
and illustrated by some sound divines at the command 
of Ernest, duke of Saxony. First edition, 1640 — last, 
with a preface by Ernest Solomon Cyprian — Nu- 
remberg, 1736, fol. 

The work of Pfaff on the Bible, Tuebingen, 
1729 ; and to this may be added a more modern pub- 
lication, of the same class, namely : Die heilige Schrift 
mit Anmerkungen, 'the holy Scripture with annota- 
tions, by Dr. John Godfrey Koerner, in three 
parts. Leipzig, 1770—1773, 4to. 

Different from these, although belonging to the 
same class, are several other works, in some of which 
likewise the continuous text of the whole Bible, and in 
others that of the Old, or New Testament in particular, 
is explained by observations annexed, but in which a 
new translation is also made the ground work. 

Among the more recent of this kind, the principal 
place is due to the celebrated Wertheim translation of 
the Bible, by John Lawrence Schmid, on account 
of the excitement it produced at the time of its publica- 



182 COMMENTARIES. 

tion, and also on account of the surprise which this 
must now occasion us. But as emperor and empire 
were both wrought into a state of ferment against this 
translator and his work, only the first part of it made 
its appearance under the title : Die Goettiche Schriften 
vor den Zeiten des Messias, durch und durch mit An- 
merkungen erlaeutert, ' the divine writings before the 
time of the Messias, illustrated throughout with notes.' 
Werth. 1736, 4to. 

Entire, and undoubtedly far more beneficial as re- 
spects genuine acquaintance with scripture, is the trans- 
lation of the Old Testament with notes, by John Da- 
vid Michaelis, which appeared at Goettingen, in 13 l 
parts, 1769-83, 4to ; and the same author's transla- 
tion of the New Testament, Goettingen, in three parts, 
1789-92, 4to ; Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments ; 
and Ubersetzung des Neuen Testaments. 

To these works must be added, Uebersetzung und 
erlaeuterung der heiligen Buecher Neuen Testaments ; 
1 Translation and exposition of the sacred books of the 
New Testament,' by Dr. John Henry Molden- 
hauer, 4 vols, in 4to. Leipzig, 1763-70, and of the ■ 
Old Testament, 6 vols, in 4to. Q,uedlinburg, 1774 
—78. 

Of the modern German translations of the New 
Testament in particular, only those two which are 
most dissimilar need be mentioned ; namely, John 
Albert Bengel's, printed at Stuttgard, 1764, 8vo, ; 
and the famous one of Bahrdt, with the title : Neu- ' 
este OrTenbarungen Gottes in Briefen und Erzaehlun- 
gen ; f Last revelations of God in epistles and narra- 
tions,' in 4 parts. Riga, 1773, 8vo. 



COMMENTARIES. 183 

A second class of works, belonging to this depart- 
ment, is formed of the commentaries, which are extant. 
Some of them extend over the whole Bible ; some are 
limited to the Old, or to the New Testament in parti- 
cular ; and some again are confined to certain books 
of the one or the other. 

The commentaries that we have of Luther on al- 
most all the books of the Bible, deserve the first place ; 
but it is unnecessary to mention them here, because 
they are both generally known and appreciated. But, 
next to his works, no expositions were formerly more 
highly esteemed in our church than those of John 
Brentz, the celebrated Wurtemberg divine, which 
likewise extend almost over the whole Bible, and fill 
seven of the eight folio volumes, of which the collec- 
tion of his works consists. 

The principal divines of the reformed church, also, 
Zwingle, Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer,Conrad 
Pelican, made the interpretation of the Bible a chief 
object of their learned and industrious efforts to ad- 
vance the general good, and thereby acquired as much 
reputation for a purer religious knowledge as those of 
our own. Yet all their labors in this department must 
unquestionably yield to those of John Calvin, who, 
in his commentaries on all the books of the Bible with 
the exception of the Apocalypse, displayed a learning, 
an acuteness, and a spirit, which distinguished him 
I from all his contemporaries, and allowed him to con- 
U tend with Melancthon himself for the highest place.* 
His commentaries, also, fill almost the first seven vol- 
U umes of his works, the collection of which was pub- 
* Note XLIX. 



184 COMMENTARIES. 

lished at Amsterdam, from the year 1667, in nine 
folios. 

Of the last century, it is not necessary to mention 
more than the principal work of this kind, namely, 
that of Grotius : Annotationes in Yetus et Novum 
Testamentum ; for it must at that time have been re- 
garded as a principal work, since Abraham Calo- 
vius thought it necessary to compose in opposition to 
him his Biblia illustrata, in four folios. Frankfort, 
1672-76. Notwithstanding all the learning which 
this work of Calovius contains, and to which even 
Richard Simon himself does justice,* it is now almost 
forgotten, while the annotations of Grotius, which had 
only been introduced in the collection of his works, 
have been considered, even in our own day, by some 
of our most esteemed theologians, as worthy of a par- 
ticular edition. They have been published by George 
Louis Vogel and John Christopher Doederlin, 
enlarged with their own additions, at Halle, 1775-76, 
in three vols, in 4to. 

The 'following great works of the last century and 
of our own, are prominent on account of their contain- 
ing collections of the expositions of various interpreters, 
which, however, must unavoidably produce a strange 
mixture of good and bad. 

The work, entitled : Critici sacri or Angli- 
cani. It came out originally at London in 1660, in 
nine folio volumes,t afterwards at Frankfort in 1697, 
in seven folios, and at the same time at Amsterdam 

* See his Histoire crit. des Commentateurs, chap, xviii. 

t The English scholars, who united in the compilation of this 
work, were John Pearson, Anthony Scattergood, Francis 
Gouldman, and Richard Pearson. 



COMMENTARIES. 185 

with some additions, which were separately printed in 
1700, 1701, by the publishers of the Frankfort impres- 
sion, in two supplementary volumes. 

An epitome of this great compilation, published by 
Matthew Poole, who was also an English divine, 
with the title : Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scrip- 
turae sacrse interpretum et commentatorum, Tom. v. 
London. This work contains even a greater treasure 
of scriptural illustration than the former, because the 
author drew from more numerous sources than his 
predecessors. It was reprinted as early as 1679, at 
Frankfort and Utrecht, and in 1712 at Frankfort a 
second time, with a preface by John George Priti- 
us, in the same number of volumes. 

To the same class of publications belongs a later 
work of this kind in German, and undertaken by Ger- 
man theologians, namely : ' the holy scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments, together with a complete il- 
lustration of them, being a compilation of the choicest 
remarks of English writers, and enlarged with many 
additions of German divines, Baumgarten, Dietel- 
maier, Doederlein, Brucker, and others. In nine- 
teen volumes 4to. Leipzig, 1749 — 1770. 

Among the exegetical works, in which the Old 
Testament in particular was illustrated, there is scarce- 
ly one, if we except the late work of Michaelis, which 
can be compared to the Commentary of the learned 
John Le Clerc, or Clericus.* Altogether it consists 
of five volumes, folio, the first of which was published 
in 1693. 

But on the scriptures of the Old Testament there 

* Note L. 
16 



186 COMMENTARIES. 

has not been such frequent labor bestowed, at least 
not on them as a whole, as on those of the New, which 
from the earliest periods have occupied the industrious 
attention of many learned men. 

A very happy illustration of this industry is pre- 
sented in the paraphrases of Erasmus on the New 
Testament, which were published in parts from the 
year 1517, and in the edition of his works by Le 
Clerc, Leyden, 1703 — 1706, ten vols, folio, are collect- 
ed in the seventh volume. 

Soon after Erasmus and in part contemporaneous 
with him, James Faber published his commentaries 
on the four gospels, on the epistles of St. Paul, and on M 
the Catholic epistles, which appeared at Metz, Paris 
and Basle, from 1522 to 1527 in fol. 

The remarks, by which Theodore Beza had il- 
lustrated the text in several of his editions of the New 
Testament, were collected together by Erasmus 
Schmid, in his posthumous work, containing a version 
of the New Testament, with notes and observations. 
Nuremb. 1658. fol. 

Yery valuable also are the paraphrases on the 
whole of the New Testament, which Moses Amy- 
rault published at Saumur in eight volumes, from ' } 
1644 to 1651. 

The French translation of the New Testament, 
with remarks by John Le Clerc, appeared at Am- 
sterdam, 1703, two vols. 4to ; — another French trans- 
lation, with explanations by Beausobre and Len- 
fant, at Amsterdam, 1741, two vols. 4to ; — and the 
celebrated New Testament, with moral reflections by 
father Pasquier Q,uesnel, which produced so much 



B 
COMMENTARIES. 187 

excitement in the Roman church, was published ori- 
ginally in 1687 at Paris, and afterwards, much enlarg- 
ed, at Brussels in 1702, in eight vols. 8vo. 

Of the English works of this kind, it will be suffi- 
cient to mention three : 

The New Testament with annotations, by Henry 
Hammond, D. D. It was translated from English into 
Latin by Le Clerc, and published at Frankfort in 
1714, in two vols. fol. 

A Paraphrase and commentary on the New Testa- 
ment, by Daniel Whitby, D. D. London, 1727, two 
vols. fol. 

A paraphrastic interpretation of the New Testament, 
with critical notes, by Philip Doddridge, D.D. Lon- 
don, 1738 — 1747, three volumes in 4to.* It was trans- 
lated into German, and published in four volumes, 
4to, at Magdeburg, 1750. 

Of the Commentaries on the New Testament which 
have been written by our own divines, a much more 
extensive list might be made, and it is consequently 
the more necessary to limit it to some of the more 
modern. 

A mass of learning is contained in John Chris- 
topher Wolf's Curae philologicae et criticae in Nov. 
Test, in four volumes, 4to, Hamb. 1738-41 .t 

Almost as much learning, but less acuteness, may 
be found in Christopher Augustin Heumann's 
exposition of the New Testament, in twelve parts, 
Hannov. 1750—1763, 8vo. 

An excellent work, although less learned, is John 

* Note LI. 
t It was also published in five volumes 4to, at Basle, 1741. Tr. 



188 



COMMENTARIES 



Albert Bengel's Gnomon Novi Testament!, Ed. 
tert. Tubingae, 1773, 4to. An abridged translation 
made its appearance under the title : Das Neue Testa- 
ment mit eingeschalteten Erklaerungen als ein Auszu^ 
der Arbeiten des seligen Bengels, 'the New Testament 
accompanied by explanatory remarks, an epitome of 
the works of the late Bengel,' by David Christian 
Michaelis, Lips. 1769, 4to. 

Of the same kind as this last work is : Das Neue 
Testament mit einem genauen Inhalt, Sinn, Zusam- 
menhang und Ammerkungen versehen, 'the New Tes- 
tament, with an accurate view of the contents, sense, 
connexion, with notes,' by John David Nicolai, in 
two parts. Bremen, 1775. 

Of a different character, and intended for the really 
learned interpreter, is the following work : Novum 
Testamentum Graecum perpetua adnotatione illustra- 
tum, a Joh. Benj. Koppe. Gottengae. Tom. i. iv. 
1778, 1783, 8vo. Upon the death of the author, this 
work was interrupted, and it has not yet been com- 
pleted by the learned men, who since that event have 
published some volumes. The young interpreter 
who is entering upon the subject, will find a very use- 
ful substitute, in a work intended for him, by John 
George Rosenmueller : Scholia in Nov. Test. 
Tom. i— iv. Norimberg, 1777-83, 8vo.* 

Lastly, some of those hermeneutical works must 
not be passed over unnoticed, which illustrate and ex- 
plain separate books of scripture. In fact, this class 
of compositions justifies the highest degree of expecta- 
tion ; for it is to be presumed, that the industry of an 
* Note LII. 



COMMENTARIES. 189 

interpreter, who confined himself to one particular 
book, will have produced greater results, than the in- 
dustry of another, whose attention was divided among 
several. And, in truth, this is the case with many of 
these works. But, since the number of such interpre- 
tations is considerable, it becomes the more difficult to 
make a selection, as only two or three of the most 
valuable or recent, on each particular book, shall be 
introduced. 

The interpretation of Genesis, has in our own 
times been very greatly facilitated by means of a work, 
entitled : Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont 
il paroit, que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre 
de la Genese — par Jean Astruc. Bruxelles, 1753, 
8vo.* — But all, which partly since, and partly before 
that time, has been done and attempted, correctly to 
settle the interpretation of that book, is now brought 
together in J. G. Eich horn's Urgeschichte, 'primi- 
tive history,' an edition of which has been published, 
with an introduction and remarks, by Dr. John Phi- 
lip Gabler, in two parts, 1791-93, 8vo.t 

On the other books of Moses, so far as relates to the 
history of the formation of the Israelitish common- 
wealth and the code of laws which they contain, the 
work of Michaelis on the Mosaic law is undoubtedly 
the best commentary. i 

In the beginning of the last century Nicolas Sera- 
rius published, at Mayence, a commentary on most 
of the other historical books of the Old Testament, 

* Note LIII. t Note LIV. ± Note LV. 

16* 



190 COMMENTARIES. 

which, iii the judgment even of Simon, is equally dis- 
tinguished for its learning and acuteness.* 

We have an exposition of the Hagiographa in the 
work of John Henry Michaelis : adnotationes ube- 
riores philologico-exegeticse in libros Hagiographos 
Yet. Test. Tom. iii. Halse, 1645—1751, 4to.t 

In works of this class, the Psalms in particular are 
most frequently explained, but the most recent work is 
that of Dr. George Christ. Knapp, who published 
a translation of them with remarks, at Halle, 1778, 
1782, Svo. Die Psalmen — ueberstetzt und mit Anmer- 
kungen. 

On Job the principal work is that of Albert 
Schultens, entitled : Liber Jobi cum nova versione 
et perpetuo commentario. Lugd. Bat. Tom. ii. 4to. 
1737. A new edition of this work, somewhat abridged, 
was published by George Louis Vogel, at Halle, in 
two vols. Svo, in 1773-4. 

The same author's book on the Proverbs must take 
precedence of all others : Proverbia Salomonis cum 
commentario. Lugd. 1748, 4to. This work also 
was published by Vogel in 1769, accompanied by 
a valuable auctarium by William Abraham Tel- 
ler. 

Less comprehensive is the translation of the Pro- 
verbs of Solomon with explanatory remarks, by John 
Christopher Doederlein, the second edition of 
which was printed at Altorf in 1782, 8vo. 

* His commentary on the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings 
and Chronicles, first came out at Mayence. in part after his death in 
the years, 1609, 1610, 1617, fol. 

t Note LVI. 



COMMENTARIES. 191 

Der Prediger Salomo, mit einer Erklaerung nach 
dem Wortsverstand, von Mosen Mendelsohn, aus 
dem Hebraeischen uebersetzt von Joh. Jac. Rabe, 
s the Book of Ecclesiastes, with an interpretation ac- 
cording to the literal sense, by Moses Mendelson, 
translated from the Hebrew by John James Rabe. 
Anspach, 1771, 4to.' This is, in various respects, a 
valuable work. 

On the Song of Solomon, which has suffered more 
by incorrect interpretation than any other book, we 
have all that is learned in John Mark's Commenta- 
rius in Canticum Salomonis. Amstel. 1703, 4to. The 
commencement of an improved method of treating this 
poem was made in the small work of John Frederic 
Jacob i, in 8vo, printed in 1771, with the title : Das 
durch eine leichte und ungekuenstelte Erklaerung 
von seinen Vorwuerfen gerettete hohe Lied ; < the 
Song of Solomon delivered, by an easy and unaffected 
interpretation, from the imputations cast upon it.' This 
improvement it really received in a publication of Dr. 
Hupnagel : Salomos hohe Lied gepreuft. uebersetzt 
und erlaeutert; 'Solomon's Song examined — trans- 
lated and explained. 5 Erlangen, 1784, 8vo. 

With respect to the prophetical books of the Old 
Testament, we may consider the two following works 
in the light of general introductions. 

Nicolas Guertler : Systema theologiae prophe- 
ticae. Ed. sec. Francof. 1724, 4to. 

Christian Augustin Crusius : Hypomnemata 
ad Theologiam propheticam. Tom. ii. Lips. 1764, 
1771, 8vo.* 

* Note LVII. 



192 COMMENTARIES. 

The prophecies of Isaiah in particular, have lately 
occupied the attention of many scholars. In addition 
to the older production of Campegius Vitringa : 
Comment, in Esaiam — ed. nov. Basil. Tom. iii. 1732, 
fol.,* we have a work of Doederlein : Esaias — ex 
recensione textus Hebrgei cum notis, Altorf. Ed. sec. 
1780, 8vo ; and a new English translation, with notes, 
by Robert Lowth, D. D. London, 1778, 4to. This 
was translated into German by John Benjamin 
Koppe, and published with additions and observa- 
tions, at Leipzig in three vols. 8vo. 1779, 1780. t 

For a long time we possessed scarcely any thing 
on Jeremiah, except the Commentary of Henry Ve- 
nema, Loewarden, 1765, two vols. 4to. But at pre- 
sent we have, in addition, the work of John David 
Michaelis, entitled : Observationes philologicae et / 
criticae in Jeremiae Vaticinia et Threnos — edid. mul- 
tisque animadversionibus auxit — Joh. Frid. Schleus- 
ner. Goetting. 1793, 4to.t 

The prophecies of Ezekiel, and particularly of his 
latter temple, received at the very beginning of the last 
century, very learned interpretations in the following 
work : Hieron. Pradi et Joh. Bapt. Villalpan- j, 
di in Ezekielem explanations et adparatus urbis ac >> 

* It has several times been published, in two volumes folio. Tr. 
The publication of a German translation of this work, compressed, 
was commenced by Anthony Frederic Buesching in 1749-51, at 
Halle, in two vols. 4to. 

t Note LVIII. 

t The more recent work of the lately deceased Gottlob Leber 
Spohn, professor of theology at Wittemberg: Jeremias Vates ever- 
sione Judaeorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum interpret. Graec. 
emendatus — Lips. 1794. 8vo., does not belong to the class of inter- 
pretations. 

Vol. ii. of Spohn's work was published by his son in 1823. — A 
notice of Blayney's Jeremiah may be seen in Home, p. 233. Tr. 



COMMENTARIES. 193 

templi Hierosolymitani — illustratus. Romae, Tom. iii. 
1569 — 1604, fol.- but a work of more utility is that of 
John Frederic Stark : Comment, in prophetam 
Ezekielem. Francof. 1731, 4to. 

Ancient and modern attempts to remove the diffi- 
culties in the collection of DanieFs prophecies are to 
be found in Martin Geier's Prselectiones academic® 
in Danielem. Lips. 1762, 4to. 

Herman Venema — Dissert, ad vaticin. Danielis : 
Cap. ii. viii. viii. Leovard, 1745, 4to, and 

Exposition of the book of Daniel — by John 
Christopher Harenburg, in two parts. Blanken- 
burg, 1770-72, 4to.* 

Lastly, on the twelve minor prophets, we have, be- 
sides a large number of interpretations on separate 
buuks.t the work of John Marck : Commentarius in 
xii prophetas minores — in Pfaff's edition. Tubing. 
1734. fol. 

Translations of the prophets, with the exception of 
Jonah, by Christian Godfrey Struensee, in three 
vols. Halberstadt, 1769-73, 8vo. 

Prophetse Minores ex recensione Textus Hebraei 
cum notis Joh. Aug. Dathe. Halae, ed. ii. 1779, 
8vo. 

Among the expository writings on particular books 
of the New Testament, none are more important and 
necessary than those which, under the name of Har- 

* Note LIX. 

t Among these the most distinguished is the Commentary of 
Edward Pococke on Hosea and Joel. Oxford 1685-91, fol. 

For a notice of Horseley's Hosea, Pococke on Hosea, Joel, 
Micah,nadMalachi,Bi.AYNEY's Zechariah, Newcome's Ezekiel and 
minor Prophets, with other English works, see Home, pp. 234, 
ss. Tr. 



194 COMMENTARIES. 

monies of the evangelists, comprehend the four Gos- 
pels, illustrate one by means of the others, and en- I 
deavor, by comparing their accounts, to determine ( 
throughout the true chronological order of these works 
and of the history of Christ. But as this, unhappily, 
has been done in almost all cases, in various methods, 
it becomes necessary to attempt to compare some of 
them together.* 

Among the older works of this kind the best, un- 
doubtedly, is that of Martin Chemnitz : Harmonia 
quatuor Evangelistarum — quam Polycarpus Lyse- 
rus continuavit — Johannes Gerhardus perfecit. 
Ed. nov. Hamburg. Tom. iii. 1704. fol. 

To the end of the last century belong the following: 

Bernhard Lamy : Commentarius in harmoniai 
et concordiam quatuor evangeliorum. Turn. i. Paris. 
1699, 4to ; and Harmonia evangelica, cui subjecta est r ! 
historia Christi ex quatuor evangeliis concinnata — 
auct. Jo. Clerico. Amstelod. 1698, fol. 

Later works of this kind are these : 

John Reinhard Rues : Harmonia Evangelista- 
rum. Tom. iii. Jenae, 1727-30. 8vo. 

John Albert Bengel's richtige Harmonie der I 
Evangelisten, 'accurate harmony of the Gospels.' 
Third edition, Tuebingen, 1766, 8vo. 

Harmony of the Gospels, by Eberard David 
Hauber, together with the same author's life of Jesus 
Christ, drawn from the four Gospels, and remarks on f> 
the harmony. Lemgo, 1737, 4to. 

New harmony of the Gospels, by Ernest Augus- 
tus Bertling. Halle, 1767, 4to. 
*NoteLX. 



im 



COMMENTARIES. 19a 

Some illustrations of the gospel of St. Matthew in 
particular are contained in the commentary of Solo- 
mon Van Till which appeared in 1708 at Frankfort, 
translated from the Dutch, and at the time of its publi- 
cation was greatly valued. Also the Dubia evangeli- 
ca discussa et vindicata of Frederic Spanheim, pub- 
lished at Geneva, 1704, in three vols. 4to, relates prin- 
cipally to this Gospel. 

In addition to these, we have : James Elsner's 
Commentarius critico-philologicus in evangelium 
Matthaei — cum notulis Ferdin. Stosch, Zwolliae, 
Tom. ii. 1769. 4to. But the third volume, which ap- 
peared at Utrecht in 1773, contains a commentary on 
the gospel of St. Mark. 

On the great question relating to this evangelist, 

I whether he was an epitomist of St Matthew or not, we 

■ have two treatises ; one by Koppe, of the year 1780, 

j which maintains the negative, and another by Gries- 

bach, counsellor of the consistory, published in 1789, 

asserting and proving the affirmative. 

On St. Luke ; — Observations philological et theo- 
logical in Lucae cap. ix. priora, auct. Carolo Segaar, 
Trajecti, 1766, 8vo. 

On St. John ; — the old valuable work of Freder- 
ic Adol. Lampe : Commentarius analytico-exegeticus 
— Evangelii secundum Johannem. Tom. iii. Amste- 
lod. 1724-26, 4to. A later and still more valuable 
publication is that of Storr, Ueber den Zweck des 
Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, ' on the design 
of the gospel and epistles of St. John.' Tuebingen, 



1786, 8vo.* 



* Note LXI. 



196 COMMENTARIES. 

On the Acts ; John Louis Lindhammers Aus- 
fuehrliche Erklaerung und Anwendung der Apostel- 
geschichte, ' Copious explanation of the Acts of the 
apostles, with application.' Halle, 1725, fcl. Also : 
Dissertatio in Acta Apostolorum, by John Ernest 
Immanuel Walch. Jenae, 1756-59-61. Tom. hi. 
4to. 

Of the epistles of St. Paul there are so many inter- 
pretations, that it is impossible to take notice of any 
but the more modern. 

Among these belong the paraphrases of three dis- 
tinguished English scholars, which in a manner con- 
stitute one whole ; namely : A paraphrase of Paul's 
epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Co- 
rinthians, by John Locke, London, 1709, 4to. This was 
translated into German by John George Hoffman, 
and published at Francfort, 1769, two vols. 4to. — A j 
paraphrase of the epistles of Paul to the Colossians, 
Philippians and Hebrews, by James Pierce, London, 
1724, 1733, 4to. — Also, a paraphrase of the epistles to i 
the Thessalonians, Philemon, Timothy, and Titus, 
by George Benson, London, 1734, 4to. This also \ 
was translated into German, together with his para- 
phrase on the Catholic epistles. Leipsig, 1761, four 
vols. 4to. 

From the scholars of our own country, we have 
the following works. 

Exposition of the epistles of St. Paul to the Gala- \ 
tians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessaloni- & 
ans, and Philemon, by Sigismund James Baumgar 
ten ; to which some contributions were made by H 
Semler. Halle, 1767, 4to. 



COMMENTARIES. 197 

Paraphrase and notes on the epistles of Paul to 
the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon, by 
John David Michaelis. Goettingen, 1750, 4to. 

A paraphrastic interpretation of the epistle to the 
Romans, by Gotth. Traug. Zachari^e, Goettingen, 
1769, 8vo. Also, on the two epistles to the Corinthi- 
ans, 1769, and on those to the Galatians, Ephesians, 
Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, 1770, 8vo, both 
works published at Goettingen by the same author. 

Of the epistles of St. Paul taken separately, those 
addressed to the Romans and Hebrews have occupied 
the attention of the greatest number of interpreters. 
On the former, there are among the later works — 

A Paraphrase with notes on the epistle to the Ro- 
mans, by John Taylor, London, 1745, 4to. A 
German translation was published at Berlin in 1759, 
4to. 

Benedict Carpzov : Stricturse in epistolam 
Pauli ad Romanos. Helmstad. ed. sec. 1758. 

Christian Frederic Schmid : Annotationes in 
Epist. Pauli ad Romanos. Lips. 1777, 8vo. 

On the Hebrews : John Andr. Cramer's Erklae- 
rung des Briefes an die Hebraeer, ' Explanation of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, in two parts,' Copenhagen, 
1758, 4to ; also Baumgarten's with Masch's notes, 
and additions by Semler, Halle, 1763, 4to ; and, 
that of Michaelis, in two parts, Frankfort, 1762, 64, 
4to. 

A new translation of the epistle to the Hebrews, by 
Morus. Leipz. ed. sec. 1781, 4to. 
17 



198 COMMENTARIES. 

The epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, illustrated by 
Dr. Storr. Tuebingen, 1789, 8vo. 

A complete introduction to the epistle to the He- 
brews, by Werner Charles Ziegler. Goettingen, 
1790, 8vo. 

Epistola Pauli ad Hebrseos Greece, perpetua anno- 
tation illustrata a J. H. Heinrichs. Goettingae, 
1792, 8vo.* 

On the epistles which are called Catholic, there is, 
besides the paraphrase of Benson, a brief exposition 
by Zachari^e, Goetting. 1776, 8vo, and also a work 
by David Julius Pott : Epistol. Catholicse Grace, 
perpetua annotatione illustratae. Vol. i. ii. Goettingae, 
1786, 90. 8vo. 

Lastly ; Among the great variety of works which 
have been published on the Revelation of St. John, the 
following only can be here mentioned : 

The Revelation of John, or rather of Jesus Christ 
interpreted, by John Albert Bengel. Second edi- 
tion, Stuttgard, 1746, 8vo. 

John Christopher Hareneerg : Erklaermiff 
der OrTenbarung Johannis, 'Interpretation of the Re- 
velation of John.' Brunswick, 1759, 4to. 

Maranatha — or the book of the coming of the 
Lord. By J. G. Herder. Riga, 1779, 8vo. 

And, the latest work which has appeared on this 
book of scripture, J. G. Eichhorn : Commentarius in 
Apocalypsin. Tom. ii. Gottingae, 1791, 8vo.t 

* Note LXII. t Note LXIIL 



OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 



CHAPTER VII 



199 



After this brief list of the principal literary works 
relating to the interpretation of scripture, nothing 
further is necessary, with respect to this last branch 
of knowledge belonging to the study of interpretation, 
than to subjoin some observations on the method by 
which we may, with the most facility and success, not 
only comprehend those principles, but also apply them 
with some degree of readiness. These observations 
may be reduced to a small compass. For, on the one 
hand, in this subject all depends simply on the correct 
determination of the object proposed by any one in 
the study of hermeneutics, from which the observa- 
tions then flow of themselves ; and, on the other, after 
what "has already been stated, it can hardly be further 
necessary, to recommend it on any peculiar grounds. 

Now with respect to that object, it may certainly 
be presumed, that the principal aim of every one who 
applies himself to the study of hermeneutics must be 
this : to place himself by means of this knowledge in 
such a situation, as will enable him, by the aid of cor- 
rect principles, to explain the Bible for himself, and 
with his own eyes to discover its contents ; and fur- 
ther, to apply his knowledge as a test of the interpre- 
tations of others, thereby forming a judgment respect- 
ing the results to which they have arrived. We may 
safely suppose, that every man, who is clearly con- 
scious of any design on this subject, will have this 
two-fold view ; at least, it is easy to show, that one of 

* Note LXIV. 



200 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 

these objects cannot be possessed without the other, 
and that either this design, or none that is reasonable 7 
must be contemplated. 

But here it cannot possibly be concealed, that, ac- 
cording to the usual way of pursuing an exegetical 
course at most of our universities, this does not seem 
to be the principal aim of the greater proportion of 
students. The usual way is, to attend (whenever it is 
practicable to do so,) one or more courses of exegetical 
lectures on all the books of the Bible, to hear these in- 
terpreted by an instructor, and merely to endeavor 
to note down his interpretations as fully as possible, 
and then — to lay them up for future use.* 

If we may judge according to this view of the case, 
the design of the great proportion would seem to be 
this : to collect together, during their theological 
course at the university, from the oral instruction of 
one or more teachers, a complete commentary, if pos- 
sible, on the whole Bible : for nothing beyond this 
design can be attained by such a method. But, that 
this cannot be the design which a man ought to have r 
is in the strongest manner brought home to the feel- 
ings, because it does not in any degree at all corres- 
pond with the trouble which his acquisitions must 
have cost him. 

If, indeed, this is the ultimate object which a man 
aims at, if nothing more is wished than to have a com- 
mentary, which may afterwards be consulted, to which 
he may resort when pressed with a difficult text, and 
which may supply materials sufficient in general for 
interpretation within the family circle and in the puU 
* Note LXY 



OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 201 

pit ; this may be attained with much greater ease, 
and undoubtedly at a much cheaper rate. We have 
already printed commentaries in abundance. We 
have them of all kinds, in all forms and sizes, of de- 
sirable brevity and of desirable length, in Latin and in 
German. It is only necessary for a man to accomo- 
date himself with one or two of these, and he has all 
that he wants ; he can spare himself the trouble of 
taking notes on four or five courses of exegetical lec- 
tures, which, in this case, would be a labor altogether 
superfluous. 

Undoubtedly there might often be a very great dif- 
ference between the commentary which a man may 
procure, and the exegetical course of lectures which 
he may hear ; yet there are late works of this kind, 
highly valued, and indeed with great reason, which 
in part have given the tone to the whole interpretation 
of our age, and those every professor himself in pre- 
paring his lectures must use. This then is a conside- 
ration which removes almost all the difference which 
could arise ; or at least, renders it unimportant. 

For one, who contents himself with merely hear- 
ing an exposition of what the Bible contains, it is not 
of very great importance, at least in a principal re- 
spect, what the interpretation is. Whether he rely 
upon an old commentator or a modern interpreter, in 
all cases he can only see with the eyes of another ; in all 
cases he is only led by the guidance of another. And, 
so long as he cannot himself determine whether the 
way in which he is conducted is the right one, his 
confidence is nothing but a blind faith, which must in- 
duce him to follow indifferently the good or the bad 
17* 



202 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 

guide, to receive as true the most erroneous interpreta- 
tions as well as the most correct. For this purpose, 
it is plain that no particular study is requisite. If a 
man is willing to content himself with this, he may 
spare himself the labor of interpretation altogether. 
Hence, then, it is most clearly evident, that a very dif- 
ferent design from this must be proposed, and this can 
be none other than the one already stated. In pursu- 
ing the study of hermeneutics, the only design which 
can, with any appearance of reason, be aimed at is, to 
learn how to interpret for one's self, and to form a 
judgment, on sure fundamental principles, respecting 
the conclusions, which the interpretation of others has 
deduced from the Bible. In reference to this design, 
and only to this, must the method also be determined, 
by which we should be guided in the subject under 
consideration. 

If this point be admitted, the necessity of the fol- 
lowing conditions, and the propriety of the directions 
resulting from them for the study of interpretation, 
will strike every one of themselves. 

The first condition is this : no one should venture to 
begin interpreting for himself, or even to suppose that he 
has acquired the ability necessary for such a task, before 
he has collected sufficient philological knowledge of 1 
the languages of our sacred writers, from the sources 
before adduced, and in the method already laid down. 
It has been shown in this work, that philological ac- 
quaintance with language is the first and most neces- 
sary aid and instrument in interpreting ; and, as it is 
a self evident truth, that no man can explain a book 
while he is unacquainted with the language in which 



METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 203 

it was written, this at any rate need not be further de- 
veloped, although it may be the more necessary to 
take some notice here of the very absurd method 
which is too often pursued in studies of this nature. 

The usual manner in our universities is, to begin 
with hearing exegetical lectures, before the student has 
acquired grammatical knowledge enough to enable 
him to understand even the words of the original text ; 
and, in fact, not a few, who are earnest in pursuing a 
thorough course of study, begin in this way for the 
very purpose of learning biblical philology, and of 
becoming acquainted with the language of scripture. 

A part of this object they may also, in some degree, 
secure in this way. In interpreting before a class, 
every professor must of course point out the significa- 
tions of the words, the characteristics of his authors 
language, the peculiarities of his style and grammar, 
All of this a student may apprehend, observe, and at 
all events note down, and thus he may collect a con- 
siderable number of fragments of biblical philology of 
no little use. But, in most cases of this kind, what 
can a man do with such fragments ? Not to urge, 
that they are nothing but fragments, that for the most 
part they suppose an acquaintance with the first and 
most necessary grammatical principles of the language 
to have been already made, that no teacher in an exe- 
getical collegiate course can enter into these, that 
what he draws from higher philology can be of no use 
to those who are not conversant in the elements of 
grammar ; to set aside all this, who can easily expect 
immediately to seize upon these scattered philological 
notices, as they must be given in the lecture of an in- 



204 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 

structor, in reference to their sources, their reasons 
and objects, so as to be able to apply them himself 
with safety ? If a man cannot do this, or does not de- 
sire to do it, he does, in fact, what is equivalent to a 
formal renunciation of any purpose of interpreting for 
himself. 

It is therefore absolutely necessary, to bring to the 
study of hermeneutics a knowledge of the first princi- 
ples at least of the grammar of the sacred languages. 
For this study can teach us nothing more than how 
to ascertain the sense of scripture by the assistance of 
that knowledge of its languages ; it can only show us 
how we must apply philology to interpretation, in or- 
der to be certain whether the interpretation is correct 
it is therefore, in the very nature of things, indispensa- 
bly necessary to have previously acquired that know- 
ledge. 

Secondly : the next thing then to be done undoubt- 
edly is, or should be, to become acquainted with the 
principles of hermeneutics, with those general rules 
which sound understanding prescribes, and those 
means of assistance and invention, which logic must 
supply. In fact, the knowledge of these is now indis- 
pensable ; but this knowledge may be procured in 
more ways than one, and it is by no means a matter of 
^difference which of them shall be selected. 

These principles and rules can be readily enough 
found in the best directions for hermeneutics which ' 
are most accessible. Neither are these principles so 
numerous as to require any great trouble to extract « 
them from these directions, or any great effort to re- 
tain them in memory : much less are they so abstract, 



METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 205 

as to demand particular acuteness or deep thought, in 
order to penetrate into the grounds of them, and thus 
become convinced of their truth. If we proceed on 
this direct course, we certainly can arrive quickly and 
easily enough at an acquaintance with them ; but still 
considerable advantages appear to be possessed by ano- 
ther, which, although it does not so promptly lead to 
the same result, accomplishes the object with equal 
certainty. 

We may ourselves draw these rules and principles 
of hermeneutics, even from examples wherein they are 
applied, and thereby secure the advantage of making 
ourselves acquainted at the same time with the princi- 
ples themselves, r and with the manner, with the bene- 
fits, with the talent of applying them ; and thus we 
shall the sooner acquire a readiness in this matter. 
Yet it is probable that both of these methods may be 
connected without inconvenience, and this would un- 
doubtedly be the most useful course. At all events, 
there would certainly be no loss of time, if a student, 
preparatory to his first exegetical course, should apply 
himself for some days to the Interpres of Ernesti, in or- 
der to obtain from it the rules which should guide in 
interpreting. A few days only would be quite sufficient 
for this purpose. Let him then be shown by an in- 
structor — not how these rules can be applied — but 
their actual application in interpreting, and by the in- 
terpretation of the scriptures let them as it were be 
brought before him ; in other words, let him attend to 
a course of instruction according to these rules, and 
thus learn the art of applying them from the pro- 
cedure of his interpreter. 



206 



METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 



That he ought not in this stage to venture himself 
to make the application, and immediately to exercise 
himself in interpreting, is too plain to need proof; for 
in the first effort it will certainly be found that this re- 
quires some experience, which can only be gradually 
obtained by attentive observation of the endeavors of 
others. But this observation is undoubtedly made 
with the most effect, by attending a course of interpre- 
tation, and listening to the oral instruction of a teach- 
er. It may indeed be drawn also from any commen- 
tary on the Bible, or on some separate book. We 
need only ask ourselves in regard to any interpreted 
passage, why the commentator has explained it in this 
way and not in another, and we shall not only in ge- 
neral easily ascertain the rule by which he was go- 
verned, but also be in a situation to perceive the par- 
ticular manner in which he applied it. But in the 
oral lecture of an instructor, we see as it were this 
very application ; we can observe the proper rise of 
the interpretation, the gradual growth and formation 
of the true sense of a passage interpreted according to 
those rules ; we perceive, with clearer apprehension, 
how the whole business can be conducted, how much 
foresight may be directed to it, where it may be abbre- 
viated or lightened ; we learn also along with many f 
practical advantages, and in this way we certainly I 
shall approach nearer to the object in view in a short 
space of time, than we could possibly do in a longer 
period, spent in pursuing a course of study entirely 
private. 

The benefit of exegetical lectures is, in this view of 
the subject, strictly and unequivocally determined; 



METHOD OF ATTAINING IT, 207 

but, even in this view, is it also very evident how, and 
for what purpose, they can and ought especially to be 
used. 

In such collegiate courses, it should not be the 
principal point, merely to learn what the instructor 
explains from the Bible, but to notice how he explains 
it. In other words, we should not regard it as the 
great object of attention, simply to hear another inter- 
pret what the Bible contains, but rather this : to as- 
certain HOW WE MAY BE ABLE OURSELVES TO DIS- 
COVER its contents. We must therefore pay more 
attention to the teacher's method of interpretation 
than to his interpretation itself, more to the manner 
than to the results of his exegesis, more to the reasons 
from which he shows the true sense of a passage of 
scripture, than to that sense itself which he shows as 
the true one. 

The ground of this may be seen in that design 
which a man should have in the study of hermeneu- 
tics, and which alone can properly be called reasonable. 
But in order to attain this object it is not necessary, to 
attend lectures on the whole Bible and all its separate 
books ; it can very well be attained by hearing a 
course of instruction on some. It may indeed, not- 
' withstanding tins, be requisite to attend particular ex- 
positions of some books of the Old Testament and of 
some of the New ; and in peculiar circumstances and 
with certain objects in view, it may also be very use- 
ful, if opportunity offer, to hear more than one inter- 
preter on the same book. The tyro in hermeneutics 
during this period, or in this term of his course, can 
derive little or no advantage from what are called Cur- 



208 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 

soria, or brief outlines. Undoubtedly they may be use- 
ful in a variety of respects, and the more certainly if the 
whole Bible is gone through with them ; but their utili- 
ty is confined to those who are prepared for them by 
other means, and who have approached the close of 
the third term, which they have to pass through. 

After the student has acquired, in the proposed 
way, some clear ideas respecting the practical applica- 
tion of the principles of hermeneutics, then in the third 
and last place, it is time for him to begin to exercise 
himself in interpreting ; for which no particular direc- 
tions are now necessary. In order the sooner to ac- 
quire a readiness in this matter and a confidence, it is 
perhaps of chief importance, to undertake it at first 
rather slowly, to adopt nothing without being able to - 
give one's self an accurate account of the reasons 
which have led to its adoption, and not to advance a 
step without a clear consciousness of the causes which 
make it necessary. In order to acquire this habit the 
more readily, it would be very proper, to select de- 
signedly, for the first efforts in interpretation, some pas- 
sages of scripture, the exposition of which involves 
several difficulties. If we exercise ourselves at first 
with very easy passages, we may very soon be led into 
the error of supposing the business of hermeneutics 
much lighter than it is, or to congratulate ourselves 
on having acquired a greater ability in conducting it 
than is really the fact. On the other hand, we can in 
no event lose any thing, if we originally venture on 
difficult places : for if in the attempt we find them too 
difficult for our abilities, we thereby experience, with 
the utmost certainty, what deficiencies in our know- 



METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 209 

ledge still remain to be supplied ; and if we succeed in 
the effort, we may be certain of a favorable result in 
reference to all easy places. The correctness of these 
attempts of our own will be best put to the proof, by 
comparing the interpretations thus deduced, with 
others which can easily be found in the abundance of 
commentaries extant. 

That, by pursuing this method, a man does and 
must learn to become his own interpreter, is not only 
a matter of experience, but is also to be presumed. 
Still however — and this consideration affords the most 
suitable conclusion to the whole subject — it is certain- 
ly most clearly evident, that no one can ever learn to 
interpret for himself, unless he has acquired the neces- 
sary knowledge of all the literature already introduced 
as belonging to exegetical theology.* 

* Note LXVI. 



18 



TRANSLATOR'S NOTES. 



The notes appended to this work are added by the translator, in 
order to give the student who is unacquainted with criticism and inter- 
pretation a general view of the most prominent points connected with 
the subjects to which the author refers. If he wishes to acquire a more 
minute knowledge of the several topics brought before him, the sources 
of information are abundant ; and the most important and useful are 
pointed out in the course of the work. More particular references 
will occasionally be made in the notes. 



NOTE I. 



This observation, which is one of great practical im- 
portance, might easily be illustrated, by showing, that in 
general those writers, whose acquaintance with langua- 
ges is but limited, are more remarkable for inaccuracy 
in forming or developing their thoughts, than others, whose 
philological knowledge is considerable. In theological 
controversy, its truth is most conspicuous : and many a dis- 
cussion of this kind would have been crushed in its very 
bud, if the disputants had formed clear conceptions of the 
litigated points, and had been able to define with tolerable 

accuracy, the terms they employed. " Explain terms ;; 

is one of the rules laid down by Claude, in his admirable 
Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, and it is no less 
important for the theological writer, than for the Christian 
preacher. It is said of Plato that he accustomed his pu- 
pils to define with precision the ideas which they attached 
to language. See Voyage d'Anacharsis, Chap. vii. Tom. 
h\ p. 141, ed. Paris, 12mo, 1810. 



212 NOTES. 



NOTE II. 

I have retained the word " dialect" which is used by 
the author, although it is not considered by some critics 
as accurately applied to the Greek of the New Testament. 
See a very able article on the nature and character of this 
Greek style, by Henry Planck, son of the author of this 
work, in the Biblical Repository, conducted by Edward 
Robinson, D. D. late Professor Extraordinary in the Theo- 
logical Seminary at Andover, Vol. I. No. iv. pp. 638 — 689. 
In this Essay the influence of the Macedonian conquests, 
and also of the Hebrew language on the Greek of the New 
Testament, is traced by the hand of a master. 

NOTE III. 

This remark is connected with the previous question, 
' whether the Greek or Aramaean language was employed 
in Palestine in the time of our Lord and his apostles.' As 
the truth seems to be that both these languages were then 
in use in that country, the reader is referred to the disser- 
tations of Pfannkuche and Hug, in the Biblical Repository, 
Vol. I. No. ii. pp. 317—363, and No. iii. pp. 530—551, 
with the introductory remarks of the editor in No. ii. pp. 309 
— 317. He will there find a brief historical sketch of the 
controversy on this subject, and a view of the evidence in 
favor of the use of each language respectively. 

NOTE IV. 

As most of the apostles were natives of Galilee, or 
lived in that country, near which numbers of persons had 
long been residing to whom the Greek language was ver- 
nacular ; it is evident that the intercourse with those per- 
sons which the ordinary occupations of life required must 



NOTES. 



213 



have obliged the apostles, to use the Greek language as 
spoken by them. St. Paul, who was a citizen of Tarsus 
in Cilicia, no doubt used the Greek as there spoken in his 
intercourse with his Gentile fellow citizens. The declara- 
tion of the author requires, therefore, some modification. 

note v. 

When it is considered that the character of the Greek of 
the New Testament is not Hebraistic merely, but partakes 
also in a considerable degree of that which distinguishes 
the later and less elegant Greek writers, who flourished 
after the formation of the common dialect, and the influ- 
ence of the Macedonian conquests on that dialect ; it must 
be evident, that, in addition to the Septuagint version, there 
are other sources to which the student should apply in 
order to form a correct acquaintance with the language of 
the New Testament. These he will find pointed out in 
the Essay of Planck before referred to, pp. 656, 657. He 
divides them into three classes ; first, writers subsequent to 
the age of Alexander ; second, writers who have treated ex- 
pressly of this style, viz. the grammarians, scholiasts, and 
lexicographers ; and third, writings which have come down 
to us composed in the later diction, such as the Alexan- 
drine and other Greek versions, the New Testament itself, 
the Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, and 
the apostolical fathers. 

NOTE VI. 

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, — "with 
which the Hebrew was anciently in part identified." The 
probability appears to be, that the Hebrew is only one dia- 
lect of a language, which was originally employed as the 
medium of communication in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopo- 
18* 



214 NOTES. 

tamia, Babylonia, Arabia and Ethiopia. From the differ- 
ent appellations given by the patriarch Jacob and his father- 
in-law to a heap of stones erected as a pledge of mutual 
amity,* it is evident, that in some respects at least, the 
language of the Syrians differed at that early period from 
that of the Hebrews. And yet, from the whole patriarchal 
history, it would seem not less evident, that the difference 
could not have been very considerable or extensive ; 
and an examination of the monuments which remain of 
both establishes the conclusion, that they were radically 
the same. Abraham, his son, grand sons, connexions and 
dependents, are constantly represented as migratory. But 
no difficulty seems to have existed in communicating with 
the different tribes or nations among whom they travelled ; 
and from this it would appear to be a reasonable inference, 
that one dialect, sufficiently common for the purposes of 
general intercourse, must have been then in use. If it 
should be said, that like the merchants of ancient times 
and of the middle ages, the patriarchs could have acquired 
sufficient knowledge of the various tongues of the people 
among whom they travelled ; this must be allowed. But 
such a supposition will not meet all the difficulties of the 
case, as an acquisition of various languages in this way, is 
hardly to be assumed of all the members of their large 
families, or rather of extensive bodies of men, as they are 
more properly to be regarded. If Abraham's own family 
supplied him with 318 native servants able to bear arms,t it 
is plain that his domestic establishment must have amount- 
ed, at least, to 1,500 souls. Unless the several dialects 
approximated sufficiently near each other to constitute 
some general medium of communication, it will be diffi- 
cult to account for the apparent facility with which Rachel 

* Gen. xxxi, 47. t See Gen. xiv, 14. 



NOTES. 215 

converses with Jacob. And that this is the true solution 
of the phenomena is strengthened by subsequent facts. 
When Moses leaves Egypt and connects himself with the 
Midianites in Arabia, he is able to converse with the daugh- 
ter of the priest in the language, which in his youth he had 
learned in the family of his Hebrew parents. When his 
Midianite father-in-law visits him in the desert, they have 
no difficulty in holding intercourse with each other. It is 
worthy of notice also, that some centuries afterwards, as 
late as the time of the Judges, the language spoken by the 
Midianites, who are none other than Arabians, was under- 
stood by the Hebrews without an interpreter. This is 
plain from the fact, that Gideon, who had entered at night 
the camp of the enemy, understood the narration of a 
dream which he heard one Midianite communicating to his 
companion.* The supposition that Gideon's knowledge 
was peculiar to himself, does not seem to be probable. 

NOTE VII. 

In applying the principle laid down in the text the 
greatest possible caution is necessary. In the first place, 
we should be intimately acquainted both with the ordinary 
and peculiar grammatical forms of the language. Altera- 
tions of the text may often be traced to the want of this. 
Several various readings in Greek manuscripts have arisen 
from the transcribers' ignorance of the principle of attrac- 
tion. Then again an author may be accustomed to sole- 
cisms not occurring in any other writer of the New Tes- 
tament. Let the critic be on his guard lest he mar the 
text of his author, at the very time when he imagines that 
he is correcting it. This has probably been the fact in 
several instances, and particularly in the Apocalypse of 

* See Judges vii, 13—15. 



216 



NOTES. 



* 



St. John. Comp. i. 5. ii. 20. iii. 12 ; to which several other 
passages might be added. The case ought to be very 
clear indeed, to allow the application of the author's prin- 
ciple. The reader will not fail to remark the limitations to 
which he himself restricts it. 

note vui. 

To assist us in forming a correct idea of the criticism 
of the New Testament, some general knowledge of the 
most important manuscripts is necessary, which it is the 
design of this note to communicate. It must of course be 
very general, as a particular and altogether satisfactory ac- 
count cannot be obtained, except by consulting various 
authors and examining fac-similies. See Simon's Histoire 
Critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, Chap, xxix — 
xxxiii, pp. 336, ss., also his Dissertation Critique sur les 
principaux Actes Manuscrits, appended to his Histoire Cri- 
tique des principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ; Michaelis' 
Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the 
German and considerably augmented with Notes, &c. by 
the Right Rev. Herbert Marsh, D. D. F. R. S. Vol. II. 
Part I. pp. 159. ss. Edit. iii. ; Horne's Introduction, Vol. 
II. pp. 97, ss. Edit. vi. Lond. and Montfaucon's Palceo- 
graphia Greeca. The two last works contain specimens 
from which the reader may acquire a sufficient acquaint- 
ance with the different characters in which manuscripts | 
were written. 

There are many manuscripts which contain readings 
that may be called characteristic. These are either de- 
rived from the same source, or are copies one of an- 
other ; and the affinity which they bear to each other has ' 
induced critics to form them into classes, each class corres- 
ponding in a great degree with what is meant by an edi- 



NOTES. 217 

tion, as the term is applied to printed books. This classi- 
fication or relationship is called by Semler* recensio, and 
the same word is used by GiiiESBACH.t BengelJ employs 
the term familia or natio ; Michaelis (in Marsh's Trans- 
lation,) uses edition ; Laurence^ text ; and Nolan|| class. 

In the greatest number of manuscripts the Gospels only 
are contained ; a considerable number comprehend the Gos- 
pels, the Epistles and Acts ; a few the Apocalypse. The 
whole of the New Testament is seldom to be found in one 
manuscript. As several have chasms, it is not to be con- 
cluded that a manuscript accords with the commonly re- 
ceived text, because it is not referred to in a critical edition 
as differing from it ; for the passage or even the book in 
which it occurs may be wanting. 

It must be observed, that there are certain manuscripts 
which are called in Greek dvayvdjanara, from dvayivcjcrKw, to read, 
and in Latin lectionaria. The portions which they con- 
tain are those which were appointed to be read in the pub- 
lic service of the Church, and hence they derive their 
name. The text of the lectionaria was occasionally altered 
to accommodate to the approved readings of a particular 
period ; and introductory clauses were often added, to prepare 
the hearer or reader for the history or discourse that was to 
follow. Such introductory clauses are sometimes retained in 

* Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti interpretationem, Halas, 
! 1767, 8vo. 

f Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Tes- 
tamenti lectionum eolleetiones. Halle, 1785, 8vo. Vol. II. Also, in 
the Prolegomena to his New Testament. 

t Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, Tubingae, 1763, 4to. 

§ Remarks upon the systematical classification of Manuscripts adopt- 
ed by Griesbach in his edition of the Greek Testament. Oxford, 1814, 
8vo. pamphlet. 

II An Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received text 
of the New Testament. London, 1815. 



218 



NOTES. 



our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example, the Gos- 
pels for the sixth and ninth Sundays after Trinity, for St. 
Philip and St. James' day, and that for All Sainte' day. — 
From these and other circumstances the evidence which 
these manuscripts afford in determining the correctness of 
readings in general, is less to be relied on than that of others. 

In some manuscripts the Greek text is accompanied by 
a Latin translation, with which, in the opinion of certain 
critics it has been made to correspond. Hence the text of 
such manuscripts has been said to latinize ; but this charge 
is thought by some of the best critics to be unfounded. 
When a Latin version accompanies the text, the copy is 
called a Greek-Latin manuscript. 

The manuscripts which are of principal importance in 
relation to controverted readings are the following. They 
are all, with the exception of the three last, written in 
uncial characters, that is, in large or capital letters. 

The first, which is designated in critical editions by an 
A, was presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch 
of Constantinople, and is now in the British Museum. It 
is called the Alexandrine Manuscript, (Codex Alexan- 
drinus,) because Cyril is said to have brought it from 
Alexandria, of which place he had been patriarch. It 
contains the whole Bible. The Old Testament, which is 
the Septuagint version, is in three folios. The New is in 
one, and commences with Matt, xxv, 6, the preceding part 
being wanting. On the antiquity of this manuscript, cri- 
tics have been greatly divided in opinion. Some have as- 
cribed it to the latter half of the fourth century, some to the 
fifth, others to the sixth, and others again will not allow it 
to be more ancient than the eighth. A fac-simile of it, 
containing the New Testament was published by Dr. 
Woide at London, in 1786, in one splendid folio. 



NOTES. 219 

The next important manuscript is called the Vatican, 
(Codex Vaticanus,) and is usually referred to in critical 
editions by a B. Its name is derived from the Vatican Li- 
brary at Rome, where it is preserved. It contains the whole 
Greek Bible. In the New Testament the order of the 
books is as follows : the Gospels, the Acts, the seven Cath- 
olic Epistles, St. Paul's Epistles, with the exception of 
those to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and the latter part 
of that to the Hebrews from ix, 14, fyw/zoi/ ™ 0e$. The re- 
mainder of the manuscript is lost, and consequently it wants 
the Apocalypse of St. John ; although this and the latter 
part of Hebrews have been added by a modern transcriber. 
It is disputed whether this or the Alexandrine manuscript 
is of higher antiquity ; and different critics have assigned 
it different dates, from the fourth century to the seventh. 

The third manuscript to be mentioned is generally de- 
noted by a C. It is a Codex rescriptus, (in Greek 
na\in\pri<7Tos,) and is so called because over the original wri- 
ting — which comprehended the whole Greek Bible, and 
which was imperfectly erased — the works of Ephrem the 
Syrian were written ; and thus the material was made to 
contain two different publications. This expedient was oc- 
casionally resorted to in ancient times, in consequence of 
the difficulty of procuring parchments or other substances 
suitable to be used for writing. The manuscript has many 
chasms. It is placed by some critics in the seventh centu- 
ry ; by others in the sixth. 

Another manuscript particularly deserving of notice, is 
called the Cambridge, (Codex Cantabrigiensis,) or Be- 
za's, (Codex Bezm,) or Stephen's /?-, and is designated by 
D. It was given to Cambridge by Beza in 1581, for which 
reason it is known by both these names ; and because some 
of the best critics have identified it with a manuscript used 



220 XOTES. 

by Robert Stephens, and marked /?' in his celebrated edi- 
tion of 1550, it has received also the third of the above 
mentioned appellations. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript of 
the Gospels and Acts, with many chasms. The arrange- 
ment of the Gospels is that which is usual in Latin copies, 
thus: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Some have thought 
that the Cambridge manuscript is corrupted from the Latin, 
because many of its characteristic readings agree with the 
Vulgate, and many with some of the old Latin versions. 
But this agreement only shows that their testimony respect* 
ing readings coincides : it by no means proves that either 
was altered from the other ; although if it did, it is ob- 
vious that the Latin might as readily have been altered from 
the Greek as the Greek from the Latin. In the opinion of 
the most judicious and accurate critics, this manuscript 
cannot possibly be more modern than the eighth century, 
and most probably was written in the fifth ; although it may 
have been written considerably before that period. 

The next manuscript in uncial letters is the Clermont, 
(Codex Claromontanus.) This also is a Greek-Latin 
manuscript, marked D. Although the letter which desig- 
nates it is the same as that of the preceding manuscript, no 
confusion can possibly arise, as the Clermont contains no 
other part of the New Testament except St. Paul's epistles. 
It is preserved entire in the Royal Library at Paris, certain 
sheets, which are said to have been stolen, having been re- 
placed. Dr. Mill supposed this manuscript to be the 
second part of the Codex Cantabrigiensis ; an opinion which ' 
is satisfactorily refuted by Wetstein. It is assigned by the 
critics to the sixth or seventh century. 

Three other manuscripts, written in small characters/ > 
are principally worthy of attention, because of the intimate 



NOTES. 221 

connexion they have with the much contested passage in 
1 John v. 9. 

The first of these, which contains the whole New Tes- 
tament, is called the Montford or Dublin Manuscript, 
(Codex Montfortianus or Dublinensis,) and is quoted 
by Erasmus in his note on 1 John v. 7, under the name of 
Codex Brittanicus, because he was informed that a Greek 
manuscript containing the above mentioned text,* had 
been found in England. No particulars of its history can 
be traced farther back than this period, 1519 — 1522. It 
belonged to Dr. Montfort, a Cambridge theologian, who 
lived in the former half of the 17th century, and afterwards 
became the property of Archbishop Usher, who presented 
it to the library of Trinity College, Dublin, where it now 
is, and whence it has derived its other title. On the au- 
thority of this manuscript alone, Erasmus inserted 1 John 
v. 7, in his third edition, having omitted it in his first and 
second ; and he inserted it in consequence of a promise he 
had made of introducing it in his next edition, if any 
Greek manuscript containing it should be found. Hence 
the suspicion has arisen that the manuscript was written for 
this very purpose. It is universally allowed that it is very 
modern, and probably was not written before the fifteenth 
century, as it is divided according to the Latin chapters in- 
troduced by Hugo in the thirteenth, which is not the case 
with any Greek manuscripts written before the fifteenth, 
when in consequence of the fall of Constantinople, the 
Greeks fled into the west of Europe. As some of its read- 
ings are remarkably coincident with those of the Latin 
Vulgate, it is very likely that its author was not a little in- 
debted to this version. Compare in the same chapter of 

* See Critici Sacri Tom. viii. Col. 272. 

19 



222 



NOTES. 



St. John verse 6, its reading, Xptards (instead of rrvtfya,) ianvk 
d\rj9eia with the Vulgate, " Christus est Veritas." 

It has been conjectured that the Codex Brittanicus of 
Erasmus was a different manuscript from the present Mont- 
fortianus or Dublinensis, because Erasmus in quoting from 
it 1 John v. 7, omits aym after the first ttmS/io, and hi before 
the second ixaprvpovvres, both of which are to be found in this 
manuscript. But it ought to be recollected, that this quo- 
tation occurs in his defence addressed to James Lopez 
Stunica, (a Spanish divine with whom he had a contro- 
versy on this subject,) in which most probably he trusted to 
his memory. In his third edition, where he professes to 
introduce from the Codex Brittanicus what was wanting 
in his own manuscripts, this controverted passage agrees 
exactly with the Codex Dublinensis. 

The second of these manuscripts, which also contains 
the whole New Testament, is known by the name of the 
Codex Ravianus or Ravii or Berolinensis, containing 
also 1 John v. 7. This manuscript was brought from the 
East by Professor Rave of Upsal, and is now in Berlin : 
hence its titles. It is generally admitted by critics that it 
is an imposture, a copy of the Greek text in the Complu- 
tensian Polyglot, of which it is said to look like a fac-sim- 
ile. It even copies from this edition errors of the press, 
from which it may be inferred that the writer's knowledge 
of Greek was very limited. Where its readings differ from 
the Complutensian, as they frequently do, they agree with 
the textuary or marginal readings in the third edition of 
Stephens. When Erasmus challenged Stunica to produce 
a single Greek manuscript containing 1 John v. 7, he would 
undoubtedly have appealed to the Codex Ravianus, had he 
known of its existence. 



NOTES. 



223 



The other Manuscript is the Codex Ottobianus pre- 
served in the Vatican Library and numbered 298. It contains 
the disputed passage, although somewhat different from the 

Common reading, thus : and tov dvpavov. itarhp, Myos, kcu Trvevpa 

iyiov, koX hi rpeis els rd iv tiai. Kai rpits eiaiv bi fiaprvpovvrss and rfjf yrjs 

— .Scholtz, who discovered this manuscript and made it 
known, ascribes it to the 14th century. The lateness of 
its date diminishes the value of its testimony in favor of 
the text in question. See Lee's Prolegomena to Bagster's 
Polyglot. Prol. vi. Sect. ii. p. 72. 

NOTE IX. 

Griesbach, in his Diatribe on 1 John v. 7, 8, at the end 
of his New Testament, gives instances of marginal glosses 
existing in some ancient Greek manuscripts, which, most 
probably, by assistance obtained from the Vulgate, have 
given rise to the text itself. These glosses seem to be of 
the same character as the mode of reasoning suggested by 
Tertullian and Cyprian, and more clearly developed by 
Facundus, Augustin, and other Latin Fathers, on the 
genuine 8th verse, in connexion with John x. 30, who de- 
duce the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation 
of "the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood." Griesbach says 
also, that the Lateran council of 1215 first exhibits the entire 
verse in a Greek version, although differing from the received 
text in the absence of the article, and the collocation of™^ 
before ayiov. In the following century, Manuel Calecas, 
a Greek who had become a convert to the Latin church, 
and was perhaps a Dominican friar, in his zeal to establish 
the addition of Jilioque to the creed of the Greeks, wrote a 
book " de fide et principiis catholics fidei," in which he 
endeavors to maintain his position that Scripture adds 
the Holy Spirit as third to the Father and Son, and intro- 



224 



NOTES. 



duces these Words : TpeTi hvtv hi jxapTVpovvres, b narhp, b \6yos kcl\ rd 
nvtv/xa to ayiov. He OlTlltS iv ro> ovpavat and bvTOi bt rpeTs Iv riaiv. 

But a few more efforts would soon produce the text as now 
received. Accordingly, in the next or 15th century, we 
find another Greek monk, Joseph Bryennius, quoting the 
very words of the received text with the exception of 
rd Tzvevjia to ayiov instead of to ayiov Ttvtvfia. And it is remarka- 
ble, that in the omission of the last clause koX bi rptn tis to Iv 
tioiv in the 8th verse, and in the reading b Xpioros Ictiv h dXrj0«a 
in the 6th, the quotation agrees with the Vulgate ; and 
therefore there is considerable reason for suspecting that 
it was formed by the aid of that version. The same coin- 
cidence is to be seen in the Montford manuscript. — Who- 
ever wishes to examine this subject more fully may consult 
the Diatribe above mentioned, Bengel's Apparatus Criti- 
cus, pp. 452 — 481, Michaelis' Introduction, Vol. iv. Part 
ii. pp. 412 — 442, Horne's Introduction, Vol. iv. pp. 462 



— 487, and the authors there referred to. 



NOTE X. 

For an account of the labors of Origen and Jerome, i 
see Jahn's Introduction, Part i. pp. 51, ss. 75, ss., and the 
authors there referred to, to which add Masch's edition of 
Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra. 

NOTE XI. 

As the author more than once introduces the name of i 
Father Simon with terms of unqualified approbation, it 
seems proper to add here a caution, for the benefit chiefly 
of the young and inexperienced reader. It is not to be 
denied, that Simon was a critic of prodigious learning, but 
his judgment in applying it is very questionable. His re- 
presentations of certain phenomena connected with the cri- 



NOTES. 



225 



ticism and interpretation of the Bible, are partial, and appear 
to border on extravagance, to say the least ; and not a few 
of the conclusions which he draws from them, are forced 
and illogical. The unwary reader of his works might easi- 
ly be led to suppose, that the authenticity of several books 
of the Old Testament, and the certainty of the interpreta- 
tion of them as they exist in the Hebrew originals, are sub- 
jects very much involved in the mists of obscurity and doubt. 
Thus, according to his prepossessions, he might be led 
either to scepticism, or to Roman Catholic views of the 
infallibility of the church. 

The translator avails himself of this occasion to add, that 
although Dr. Planck was not of the neological or rationalist 
school of Germany, yet he often speaks too favorably of 
those writers whose interpretations are thought by very able 
critics to be frequently loose, too much accommodated in 
the Old Testament to Jewish views, which thus sometimes 
influenced their expositions in the New. I refer to such com- 
mentators as Grotius, Le Clerc, and J. D. Michaelis. The 
reader is hereby cautioned against acquiescing entirely in all 
the sentiments of the author relating to those writers. 

NOTE XII. 

The same charge was advanced against Mill. His 
collection of various readings would destroy, it was ima- 
gined, the authority of the sacred text, and this extraor- 
dinary supposition is maintained by Whitby, in his Ex- 
amen variarum Lectionum Millii, which was printed at 
London in 8vo, 1720, and is also appended to the second 
volume of his Paraphrase and Commentary on the New 
Testament, fol. 1727. Its absurdity must be evident to 
every reflecting mind, as the collecting of various read- 
ings is the only way in which the text can be satisfacto- 
19* 



226 



NOTES. 



rily settled. This is conclusively demonstrated by the 
learned and acute Dr. Richard Bentley in his Remarks on 
Mr. Collin's Discourse on Free Thinking. The 6th edi- 
tion of this able work was printed at Cambridge, in 1725. 
It was written under the assumed name of Phileleutherus 
Lipsiensis, that is, in the explanation of the author himself, 
" a Free Thinker of Leipzig." This book is worth the 
attentive reading of every scholar, and especially of the 
biblical critic. 

Further information on the subject of this chapter and 
on other points connected with sacred criticism, may be 
found in the first twelve of Bishop Marsh's Lectures on 
Divinity, delivered in Cambridge as Margaret Professor. 
This work is very accessible to an English reader, and may 
be read by the young student with much profit, as introduc- 
tory to a course of critical study. 

It cannot have escaped the reader's observation that the 
latter part of the author's sketch relates principally to the 
history of sacred philology and criticism in his own coun- 
try. The names of a few of the most distinguished Eng- 
lish writers on these subjects, shall be given in subsequent 
notes, as the subjects of them may require. A complete 
catalogue would have swelled this work far beyond its in- 
tended limits. Such an one may be fouud in other books, 
and especially in Dr. Horne's Introduction, sixth edition, 
Vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix. 

NOTE XIII. 

The same author afterwards published a larger work in 
five volumes, 8vo, far superior to any of the kind that pre- 
ceded it : Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus in Septua- 
ginta et reliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocry- 
phos Veteris Testamenti. Lipsise, 1820 — 1. 



NOTES. 227 



NOTE XIV. 

In addition to the sources referred to by the author the 
common and Macedonian dialect, as found in many of the 
later Greek writers may be mentioned. See the treatise of 
Planck referred to in Notes n, and v. Also Fischer's 
Prolusiones de vitiis Lexicorum Novi Testamenti, and F. 
W. Sturz de dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina, 8vo. 
Lips. 1808. 

NOTE XV. 

Another Lexicon made its appearance in 1822, at Leip- 
zig, with the following title : Clavis Novi Testamenti Phi- 
lologica, usibus Scholarum et juvenum Theologiae studio- 
sorum accommodata, auctore M. Christ. Abrahamo Wahl. 
This is a more accurate work than Schleusner's, especially 
in the account of prepositions and particles. The author 
seems to have paid more attention to the results which the 
latest efforts in Greek literature have produced, and to be 
well versed in the pure classic, the common, and the He- 
braistic Greek, all of which he has brought to bear upon 
the New Testament. This lexicon has been translated into 
English by ' Edward Robinson, A. M. (now D. D. lately) 
Assistant Instructor in the department of Sacred Literature, 
Theol. Sem. Andover.' It is in one volume royal 8vo. and 
is considerably improved. The theological student will find 
this to be the most convenient Lexicon to the New Testa- 
ment, and also the cheapest he can procure. The translator 
announces his intention of preparing and publishing a new 
edition of his work ; revised and improved by the use of the 
Lexicons of Bretschneider, Passow and others, of the late 
ablest commentators and grammarians, and by the results of 



228 NOTES. 

his own investigations. He hopes to be able to complete 
the work in the course of the present year. 

NOTE XVI. 

For an account of the Greek versions above mentioned, 
see Jahn's Introduction, pp. 51 — 63, and the authors there 
referred to; also Masch's Le Long. Bahrdt's work is 
said by Jahn to abound with errors. He adds : " In the 
last century, several learned men, particularly Semler, 
Scharfenberg, Doederlein, Matthrei, Bruns, Adler, Schleus- 
ner, Loesner, and Fischer, corrected many parts of the 
preceding collections, and increased them by large addi- 
tions. It is much to be wished that all were published in a 
single collection." 

NOTE XVII. 

To the works mentioned in the text may be added the 
following : An Inquiry into the present state of the Sep- 
tuagint Version of the Old Testament. By the Rev. Dr. 
Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hart-street, and Fellow 
of the Royal Society, 8vo. London, 1769. 

NOTE XVIII. 

For some notice of the Targums, see Jahn, pp. 64 — 68, 
and the authors there mentioned, with Le Long. — An ac- 
count of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which the author both 
here and elsewhere erroneously mentions as a " version," 
may also be found in Jahn, pp. 135 — 141, and Le Long. 

A new Polyglot in one splendid folio volume has lately 
made its appearance under the following title. Biblia Sa- 
cra Polyglotta, textu sarchetypos versionesque praecipuas, 
necnon versiones recentiores, Anglicanum, Germanicam, 



NOTES. 229 

Italicam, Gallicam et Hispanicam complectentia. Acce- 
dunt Prolegomena in textuum archetyporum versionumque 
antiquarum crisin literalem, auctore Samuele Lee, S. T. B. 
&c. Londini, sumptibus Samuelis Bagster, 1831. In 
this Polyglot the Hebrew is from Van der Hooght's edi- 
tion, the Hebrew New Testament, by William Green- 
field ; the Septuagint, from the Vatican of Cardinal Cara- 
fa ; the Greek Testament, according to the received text ; 
the Vulgate from the editions of Sixtus V and Clement 
VIII. The English translation is accompanied with mar- 
ginal readings and parallel places ; the German is that of 
Luther ; the French, of Ostervald ; the Italian, of 
Diodati ; the Spanish of Father Scio. — An appendix is 
also added, containing the New Testament in Syriac, the 
Peshito, according to Widmanstadt's edition of 1555, 
with a collation of the edition published by the British 
and Foreign Bible Society ; the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
according to Kennicott's edition ; various readings of the 
Septuagint, from Grade's edition ; and a collection of various 
readings of the New Testament, from Griesbach. — The 
whole work is exceedingly beautiful, but in so small a 
type as to make the use of it very inconvenient. 

The Prolegomena to this work are a series of learn- 
ed disquisitions on the various topics connected with bib- 
lical criticism. As they have been printed in a small 
quarto volume of 75 pages, and can be obtained (I be- 
lieve) separately from the Bible, I add the following no- 
tice of the subjects discussed, in order that the reader may 
have a general idea of their contents. 

Prol. I. Sect i. De Scripturis sacris, earumque reve- 
latione, indole, scopo, &c. Sect. ii. De lingua qua primi- 
tus patefactae sunt Scripturae Sacra?, ejusque antiquitate, 
natura atque usu. Sect. iii. De Sacri textus originibus, 



230 NOTES. 

atque conservations. Sect. iv. De sacrarum scripturarum 
fatis durante theocratia. Sect. v. De statu sacri textus, 
Judaeis in Babylonia degentibus. Sect. vi. De Christianis- 
mi ortu, ejusque in sacras literas vi effectrice. Sect. vii. 
De masorae origine et increments. Sect. viii. De masora, 
qualis sc. sese nunc in Bibliis Rabbinicis nobis ob oculos 
ponit. Sect. ix. De ablationibus et correctionibus e scribis 
factis. Sect. x. De vocibus quibusdam legendis, quamvis 
in textu scriptae non reperiantur. Sect. xi. De ea masorae 
parte quae grammaticen, sive interpretationem sacri textus 
exegeticam, spectat. Sect. xii. Comparatio textus He- 
braici in locis quibusdam Geneseos, cum Chaldaica On- 
kelosi, necnon Syriaca versione quam Peshito appellant, 
sparsis hinc inde notis criticis. Sect. xiii. De textus He- 
braici fatis ab anno C. N. 500, ad hunc usque diem. Sect. 
xiv. De codicibus Hebraicis MSS. in India Orientali et 
Sina reperiundis. — Prol. II. Sect. i. De Pentateucho 
Samaritano, ejusque versionibus, Samaritica, Graeca, et 
Arabica. Sect. ii. De versione Samaritico-Chaldaica, 
ejusque sequacibus, Graeca et Arabica. Sect. iii. Collatio 
versuum quorundam textus Hebraici editionis Samaritanae, 
cum versione Chaldaico-Samaritica, Chaldaica Onkelosi, et 
Arabica Abu Said. — Prol. III. Sect. i. De versionibus 
Syriacis Arabicisque ex iis factis. Sect. ii. De versionibus 
Veteris Fcederis Syriacis, quae e Graeco fuerint cusae. Sect. 
iii. De recensione Karkaphensi Syriaca. Sect. iv. De 
Novi Foederis versione Syra, Peshito dicta. Sect. v. De 
versionibus Syriacis, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana. 
Sect. vi. De versionibus Arabica, sc. et Persica ex Peshito 
Syrorum, factis. — Prol. IV. Sect. i. De Septuaginta Grae- 
corum versione virali. Sect. ii. De operibus criticis Ori- 
genis, Bibliis sc. Tetraplis, Hexaplis, &,c. Sect. iii. De 
notis Origenianis, Asterisco, Obelo, Lemnisco, Hypolem- 



NOTES. 231 

nisco. Sect. iv. De Aquila ejusque versionibus S. S. Grae- 
cis. Sect. v. De Symmacho versioneque ejus Graeca. 
Sect. vi. De Theodotionis versione. Sect. vii. De reliquis 
versionibus, duinta, Sexta, Septima, Hexaplaribus. Sect. 
viii. De versione Graeca Venetiis haud ita pridem reperta. 
— Prol. V. Sect. i. De Vulgatis Latinorum versionibus, 
antiquiore sc. et Hieronymiana. Sect. ii. De versione Vul- 
gata Latina Hieronymiana. — Prol. VI. Sect, i., ii. De crisi 
Novi Testamenti, ejusque textus Graeci statu hodierno. — 
Mantissa. De interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum exe- 
getica. 

NOTE XIX. 

To the Iexicographal works mentioned by the author, 
the following are added, some of which are of later date 
than that of his publication. Those of Avenarius, Cala- 

9IO, SCHINDLER, CASTELL, ROBERTSON, StOCKIUS, GuSSET, 

and David Levi, with some others of less authority, are 
omitted. 

Johannis Buxtorfii Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- 
cum et Rabbinicum, folio, Basil. 1640 This most labo- 
rious work (opus triginta annorum,) was prepared by the 
father, and published, with some improvements, by the son. 
There is no other work which can be substituted in its 
place. 

Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, London, 1799, large 
8vo., although it contains much learning, is superseded by 
others compiled on more correct philological principles. 
The author rejects the use of the points, and is devoted to 
the philosophical and biblical views of Hutchinson. 

A compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew language, in 
two volumes, thick 12mo, vol. i, containing an explanation 
of every word which occurs in the Psalms, with notes ; vol. 



£32 NOTES. 

ii, being a Lexicon and Grammar of the whole language. 
By Clement C. Moore, (now L. L. D. and Professor of 
Oriental and Greek Literature in the general Theological 
Seminary of the Prot. Epis. church,) New- York, 1809. — 
This work will be found very useful to a beginner in He- 
brew, for whom it is principally designed. 

Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, in German, appeared at 
Leipzig, in two volumes, 8vo, in 1810 — 12 ; and in 1815, 
the author published at the same place, an abridgment of 
his work, with some improvements. The larger lexicon 
was translated into English by Christopher Leo, and 
published in two Parts, 4to, at Cambridge, (England,) Part 
i, in 1825, and Part ii, in 1828. 

In 1824, the Rev Josiah W. Gibbs, A.M., of the Theolo- 
gical Seminary, Andover, published a Hebrew and English 
Lexicon of the Old Testament, including the Biblical Chal- 
dee, from the German works of Gesenius just mentioned, 
with improvements, in one vol. 8vo. This valuable work 
was reprinted in London, in 1827. 

In 1828, Mr. Gibbs, now Professor of Sacred Literature 
in the Theological School in Yale College, published in 
Andover, a Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, includ- 
ing the Biblical Chaldee, designed particularly for begin- 
ners. This Manual is intended to assist students of He- 
brew, until the author shall be able to prepare a secon 
edition of his larger work ; which, if I may form an opinion 
from a printed specimen that I have seen, will be a great 
improvement of the first. 

Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris 
Testamenti libros, post editionem Germanicam tertiam 
Latine elaboravit, multisque modis retractavit et auxit Guil. 
Gesenius, Philos. et Theol. Doct, &c. Lipsiae, 1833. 
Royal 8vo. This work is a great improvement of the au- 



NOTES. 233 

thor's former work. He is preparing a still more extensive 
Lexicon in Latin, one part of which in thin 4to, appeared 
i last year. — The reader will find a valuable article of 
Gesenius translated from the original German, "on the 
sources of Hebrew philology and lexicography" in the Bib- 
lical Repository, vol. iii. pp. 1. ss. 

NOTE XX. 

To the list of grammars and works of a grammatical 
character given by the author, the following must be added, 
as they are among the most important for an English stu- 
dent. 

A Hebrew grammar, with a copious Syntax and Praxis, 
by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the 
Theological Seminary at Andover, 8vo. 1821. — This work 
is founded chiefly on the Hebrew grammar of Gesenius. 
The third edition considerably condensed and improved, 
was published in 1828, and the fourth in 1831. In the 
mean time the author published "Dissertations on the 
importance and best method of studying the original 
languages of the Bible, by Jahn, Gesenius and Wythnn- 
bach," translated from the original Latin, 8vo Pamphlet, 
1821. 

In 1827, the Rev. Samuel Lee, D. D. Professor of Ara- 
bic, and since regius Professor of Hebrew, in the University 
of Cambridge, published a grammar of the Hebrew lan- 
guage, comprised in a series of Lectures, 8vo. The learn- 
ed author published in 1832 a second edition of his work 
enriched with much original matter. 

In 1829, Professor Stuart published at Andover, a He- 
brew Chrestomathy, designed as the first volume of a course 
of Hebrew Study, 8vo. A second volume was issued in 
1830. 

20 



234 NOTES. 

A Manual Hebrew Grammar, for the use of beginners. 
By J. Seixas. Andover, 1833, 8vo, pp. 54. 

Winer's Chaldee Grammar, to which is appended a 
Chrestomathy or Collection of portions for reading, select- 
ed from the Targums, is a very useful compilation. The 
title of the book is : Grammatik des Biblischen und Tar- 
gumischen Chaldaismus, von Dr. Georg Benedict Winer, 
Leipzig, 1824, 8vo. 

A Manual of the Chaldee language, containing a Chal- 
dee Grammar, chiefly from the German of Professor G. B. 
Winer ; a Chrestomathy, consisting of selections from the 
Targums, and including the whole of the biblical Chaldee, 
with notes ; and a vocabulary adapted to the Chrestomathy, 
with an appendix on the Rabbinical character and style. 
By Elias Riggs, A. M. Boston, 8vo, 1832. 

NOTE XXI. 

Bishop Lowth's work was translated into English by 
G. Gregory, F. A. S., and published with the principal 
notes of Michaelis and others including those of the trans- 
lator, at London, in two vols. 8vo, in 1787 and again in 
1816. — It was republished at Boston in one vol. in 1815, 
and at Andover in 1829, with notes by Calvin E. Stowe, 
A.M. 

The work of Herder has been translated into English 
by President Marsh of Burlington College. It will short- 
ly be published in two volumes 12mo. The first volume 
is already printed. 

NOTE XXII. 

This edition of Le Long contains more satisfactory in- 
formation on the various topics connected with the criti- 
cism of the Old Testament than any single work to which 



NOTES. 



235 



the student can resort. It is in two parts, the first treating 
of the editions of the original text, and the second of the 
versions of the sacred books. Part first is comprised in 
one volume, quarto. It contains a Preface, a biographical 
sketch of Le Long, a preliminary dissertation on the varie- 
ties in Hebrew manuscripts, tables exhibiting different read- 
ings in various editions of the Bible, and a particular ac- 
count of editions. The last subject occupies nearly three 
fourths of the volume, and is divided into four chapters. 
The first gives an account of Hebrew Bibles entire, wheth- 
er with points or without ; of portions of the Bible, begin- 
ning with the Pentateuch, first the Hebrew, either whole or 
in part, and then the Samaritan : of the five small books, 
either in whole or in part ; of the prophets, all together, or 
as divided into former and later ; of the Hagiographa uni- 
ted or separate. All this most methodically and judiciously 
arranged, is comprehended within the first section. In the 
second he gives a similar account of Hebrew Bibles 
and parts of Bibles, with Rabbinical Commentaries and 
Paraphrases ; and in the third, when accompanied by 
versions. Chapter second relates to editions of the Greek 
Testament, and is distinguished by the same order and mi- 
nuteness. The third chapter gives an account of Poly- 
glots, and the fourth of the editions of the Apocryphal 
books. — Part second treats of the versions of the sacred 
books. It is divided into three volumes ; the first giving 
an account of the Oriental versions, the second of the 
Greek, and the third of the Latin. An appendix is added, 
containing some corrections and additions. To each vo- 
lume a chronological index is subjoined. 



236 NOTES. 



NOTE XXIII. 



This Bible of Michaelis is particularly valuable, not 
only for its general accuracy, but principally for the exten- 
sive and useful annotations with which the learned and 
pious editor has enriched the text, and especially the 
Psalms and Prophets. Rosenmueller is greatly indebted 
to him, particularly in his notes on the minor prophets. 
To the Bibles mentioned by the author may be added 
the celebrated edition of Everard Van der Hooght, 
Amsterdam, 1705, remarkable for the beauty of its typo- 
graphy. This edition has become very scarce. — Also, 
Jahn's Hebrew Bible, published at Vienna in 1806 in four 
vols. 8vo., with the following title : " Biblia Hebraica di- 
gessit et graviores lectionum varietates adjecit, Johannes 
Jahn, Phil, et Theol. Doct. &c." For an account of this 
edition see Horne, vol. ii. part ii. appendix, p. 8, and 
Jahn's Introduction, p. 135." — A very neat, and it is said 
correct edition, was published in 1832 at Leipsig, by 
Dr. Augustus Hahn. The editor has followed Van 
der Hooght principally. At the end of the book he has 
given a table of the sections into which the Prophets are 
divided, and a Clavis explanatory of Rabbinical notes. It 
is the cheapest edition that can be procured. 

NOTE XXIV. 

An edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena was published 
in 8vo, at Halle, in 1764, by Joh. Sal. Semler, who ac- 
companied it with notes, and added an appendix on the 
older Latin recensions in various manuscripts and speci- 
mens of Greek and Latin chirography. 



NOTES. 



237 



NOTE XXV. 

As it is exceedingly desirable, that the student of the 
Bible should acquire some knowledge of Syriac, and as 
this may be done with a very moderate degree of labor 
after having made a tolerable acquaintance with Hebrew, 
it might be proper to mention a few books most useful in 
pursuing the study of this language. But the reader is re- 
ferred to the appendix to a " Treatise on the use of the 
Syriac language, by John David Michaelis, translated 
from the German by John Frederic Schroeder, A M., 
an assistant minister of Trinity Church, in the city of New- 
York," and published in the first volume of Essays and 
Dissertations in Biblical Literature, 8vo, p. 481 — 530 ; and 
also to the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 21, note*. These 
two works, both of which are quite accessible, will supply 
him with references to authors. 

NOTE XXVI. 

This opinion was generally supposed to be correct 
when the author prepared his work. It was founded 
" partly on several passages in the prefaces to the Complu- 
tensian Bible, in which the editors boast of having received 
from the apostolic library of Pope Leo X. very ancient and 
valuable manuscripts, which had afforded them great assist- 
ance ; partly on some expressions of Erasmus, which are so 
construed as if the Pope had commanded the editors of this 
edition to follow one of the best Vatican manuscripts in 
particular." But it " is certain, that the Complutensian 
Bible very frequently differs from it, and therefore we can- 
not conclude from the readings of the one to those of the 
other." Thus far Michaelis, in his account of the Vati- 
can manuscript. Introduction, Part I. vol. ii. pp. 348 — 9. 
20* 



23S 



NOTES. 



Marsh, on the passage just quoted, (note 347,) gives a spe- 
cimen of readings which he had collected from the Vatican 
manuscript and the Complutensian edition on the first three 
chapters of St. Matthew, from which it appears evident that 
the manuscript could not have been " ever consulted by the 
editors in this part of the Greek Testament"; and the same 
result is obtained by an examination of other portions. 
For an account of the Complutensian and other Polyglots, 
see Masch's Le Long. Part i. p. 331, ss. Horne's Intro- 
duction, vol. ii. Part ii. appendix, pp. 27. ss. edit. vi. 

NOTE XXVII. 

A more complete account of this controversy may be 
found in Marsh's Michaelis, ubi sup. pp. 431 — 442, 
with the notes. 

NOTE XXVIII. 

If the reader wishes to see a particular account of the 
most celebrated editions of the Greek Testament that were 
published before Griesbach's, he will find it in Marsh's 
Michaelis, vol. ii. Part. i. pp 429, ss., Horne's Introduc- 
tion, vol. ii. Part ii, Appendix pp. 10, ss. and Le Long's Bib- 
liotheca Sacra, Masch's edition, Part i. Cap. ii. pp. 189, ss. 
A brief view is given also in Marsh's Lectures. 

As the edition of Griesbach is much used, and has given 
rise to considerable discussion, and as later editors of great 
learning and acumen have differed somewhat from this dis- 
tinguished scholar in their views of certain important prin- 
ciples, and consequently have arrived at different results ; 
it may not be unprofitable to lay before the young student, 
for whom principally those notes are intended, a general 
view of that critic's system, together with a few of the most 
prominent objections which have been urged against it. 



NOTES. 



239 



Griesbach's Prolegomena is divided into seven sec- 
tions, of which the following is an outline. 

SECTION I. 

The first section examines the origin and authority of 
the commonly received text, and shows that a new recen- 
sion is neither improper nor unnecessary. 

The author tells us, that before the publication of the 
received text in the Elzevir edition,* different editors fol- 
lowed different authorities ; some made use of Erasmus, some 
of the Complutensian text, while some selected from both, 
and availed themselves also of other sources. The materi- 
als made use of by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors 
were exceedingly imperfect. Their manuscripts were few 
in number, and comparatively of modern date and little 
value. They wanted the best and most ancient manu- 
scripts ; all the oriental versions also with the Gothic and 
Slavonic ; and although they did possess a Latin transla- 
tion, it was not the Italic. They wanted also the works of 
the Greek fathers, of whom Erasmus in his second edition 
mentions only Athanasius, Nazianzen and Theophylact ; 
and indeed the copies of the fathers which they did possess 
abounded with errors. 

They were also unacquainted with the proper method of 
using even the imperfect helps within their reach. They 
had not established any fixed laws of criticism. Hence it 
is that Erasmus in his fourth edition inserted readings 
taken from the Complutensian text, in the place of those 
which he had before introduced into his third. The accu- 
racy of this text is suspected, and on good grounds ; al- 
though it may be difficult to say how far its inaccuracy ex- 
tends. It is plain, that in some places the editors altered 

* This edition takes its name from the printer, who is celebrated for 
the beauty of his impressions. 



240 NOTES. 

and interpolated against the authority of their own manu- 
scripts, and that they were too much attached to the Vul- 
gate version. So also was Erasmus, who in his last edi- 
tions yielded to the clamors of his adversaries, and made 
alterations on the doubtful authority of the Complutensian 
edition. Since the time of these editors about five hundred 
Greek manuscripts had been discovered, all of which were 
unknown to them ; and a more enlarged view of the subject 
has greatly improved the ability of critics to employ these 
materials to greater advantage. For these and other rea- 
sons, it would be idle to suppose that they ought to be im- 
plicitly followed. 

The author then proceeds to show that the editions of 
Stephens also are not to be relied on, and that as works of 
criticism they are of little authority. He gives an account 
of the manuscripts used by that celebrated editor, and con- 
siders his /?' as the same with the Cambridge manuscript, 
Beza's account of which is, he thinks, erroneous. 

Beza's New Testament of 1559 is the text of Stephens' 
fourth edition ; his subsequent publications were compiled 
by himself. He had better helps than his predecessors, 
among which may be found the Cambridge and Clermont 
manuscripts, the Syriac version, and, in some books of the 
New Testament, the Arabic. But Beza did not make a 
thorough use of them, and Wetstein has shown in his Pro- 
legomena that he cannot be vindicated from the charge of 
negligence. He has expressed his approbation of readings 
not introduced by him into the text ; and sometimes he has 
introduced readings from one version or manuscript only, 
and sometimes even from conjecture. 

The Elzevir, or, received text, which made its appear- 
ance in 1624, is not founded on manuscripts, but follows 
the third or fourth edition of Stephens, except in about one 



NOTES. 



241 



hundred places, in most of which it follows Beza. Where 
it differs from him, the authority by which it is governed is 
uncertain. 

The received text then is founded upon those of Beza 
and Stephens, the former of whom followed the latter, with 
the exception of some places altered according to his own 
pleasure and without sufficient authority. Stephens pursu- 
ed the track of Erasmus, except in a very few places and 
in the Apocalypse, where he preferred the Complutensian 
readings. Erasmus compiled his text, as he could, from a 
very small number of manuscripts and those rather modern, 
without any other helps except the Vulgate interpolated, 
and inaccurate editions of a few of the fathers. 

From the above sketch it is abundantly evident, that 
the sanction of the received text by no means determines 
the correctness of readings. In the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth centuries about twenty editions were printed, no two 
of which entirely agreed, as each editor corrected and al- 
tered the text, according to his own judgment, acting 
on the testimony before him. Through the diligence of 
critics it has been proved, that the oldest manuscripts and 
versions, and also the quotations in the fathers, differ in 
words and phrases and sometimes in sentences, while they 
agree in important and fundamental truths. Nor in the 
former is uncertainty the necessary consequence ; but some 
are shown to be certainly preferable, others probably so, 
and those which require further investigation, a few perhaps 
excepted, of little moment. 



SECTION II. 



This section states the design which the author had in 
view in preparing his edition. 

His intention was, to collect in a small compass the 



242 NOTES. 

critical apparatus which lay dispersed in various works, and 
to prepare an edition of the Greek Testament which should 
contain a text freed from considerable errors, accompanied 
by such helps as might facilitate interpretation ; to exhibit 
the more important various readings and the authorities on 
which they are supported, together with the judgment of 
the editor respecting them expressed with perspicuity, and 
at the same time briefly and with modesty. 

The utility of such a work for students of theology is 
unquestionable. For although an intimate acquaintance 
with criticism is by no means necessary for every clergy- 
man, yet every one ought to be guarded against such errors 
as prevent an accurate knowledge and proper use of scrip- 
ture ; and this does certainly require some acquaintance 
with it. Nothing gives greater acuteness, or tends more 
thoroughly to prepare the mind for interpretation than criti- 
cism. Many places, doubtless corrupted in the common 
editions, cannot be correctly understood without it. Many 
also have given rise to controversies of which a clergyman 
ought not to be ignorant, as, for example, those connected 
with the true readings in Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
1 John v. 7.; but in order to form a sound opinion respecting 
such places, it is necessary to begin by examining others 
which are of less importance. To all this it may be added, 
that a critical collection of various readings must exhibit 
many valuable expositions of antiquity. 

I. The first object which Griesbach had in view was, 
to present his readers with a text as correct as possible. 
Every reading of any moment which might appear prefera- 
ble to the received is placed either in the text or the inner 
margin. — He does not presume that his edition is not sus- 
ceptible of improvement. Far from it. That it is so is 
clearly evident from what follows. A vast number of manu- 



NOTES. 243 

scripts have been collected by critics, some of which have 
been examined in particular places only or in a hasty man- 
ner ; whereas, if the examination had been complete and 
the results fully made known, many readings which are 
now in the inner margin, would probably have been placed 
in the text. The ancient versions do not afford a critic all 
the aid that might be obtained from them ; a Syriac edition 
from the best manuscripts is a desideratum; the Armenian 
is suspected of varying from the best copies, and of being 
adapted to a more modern Greek text ; of the Sahidic and 
Jerusalem-Syriac fragments merely have been published ; 
the Slavonic manuscripts ought to be carefully examined, 
also those of the Old Latin version. All the Greek fathers 
should be examined, as Origen is in the Symbol® Critical. 
The origin, the primitive characteristics, and the changes 
of each recension, have not been sufficiently investigated ; 
nor indeed can this be done, until further extracts shall 
have been made from the fathers : when therefore different 
readings occur in different recensions nearly of the same 
antiquity it is almost impossible to determine which are 
genuine. In the best manuscripts, interpolations, the ori- 
gin of which is very difficult to be explained, require the dili- 
gence and acumen of future critics. These considerations 
illustrate the extreme difficulty of procuring a text absolute- 
ly perfect. — He remarks further, that the collections of 
Mill, Wetstein and others are imperfect ; — that they occa- 
sionally ascribe to manuscripts, versions and fathers, read- 
ings which do not exist in them, which he professes to 
know from personal examination ; — that later editors have 
corrected errors of former, and later still will correct those 
into which their predecessors had fallen; and this, not by 
following any one manuscript, but by investigating the pri- 
mitive readings of each class. 



244 



NOTES. 



II. It entered into the editor's design, to note those 
readings which, although not preferred by him, he consi- 
dered as of equal authority with those retained, or nearly 
so with those preferred ; those also which, if inferior, are 
not to be despised, or which with some color of truth might 
seem probable to other critics. These he has separated 
from the mass, and appropriated to them descriptive marks, 
after the example of Bengel. 

III. It was his intention also to subjoin a suitable col- 
lection of various readings, such as appeared to him most 
worthy of notice. They are of the following character. 
Such as are not improbable ; — such as may assist in dis- 
tinguishing the genuine reading from interpolations ; — such 
as may elucidate the history of the Greek text, and aid in 
discovering the character of ancient recensions and re- 
markable classes ; — such as are found in many valuable 
books, or have crept into some editions, or have remarkably 
changed the sense, or may illustrate the forms of speech 
employed by the sacred writers. Of these he has not de- 
signedly omitted one, although he freely grants, that some 
not unworthy of attention may have escaped his notice, as 
must be the case in every attempt to reduce within a small 
compass such an immense collection of various readings. 
He then gives a view of his plan more in detail, with the 
names of the authors and collators whom he has examined. 
For the benefit of younger students, he has introduced a 
few specimens of conjecture.* Readings, which may be 
classed in the list which follows, he has omitted. Such as 

* See, for example, Acts vii. 14, where, to remove a difficulty, 
Beza conjectures irdvTes to be the true reading, instead of irivre. 
But, as Krebs has remarked, this would be a solecism, as grammati- 
cal correctness would require ndaais. It is to be regretted that 
Griesbach should have admitted any conjectures bearing on funda- 
mental doctrine, and he is certainly to be censured for having allow- 
ed a place to the conjectural reading deov for deds in John i. 1, of the 
Socinian Crellius. 



NOTES. 245 

are found in but few manuscripts, and those of the more 
modern date ; — such as are evidently taken from parallel 
places in the Gospels, or have crept into the text from lec- 
tionaries ; — such as refer to orthography, particularly of 
proper names, or to the order of the words, except in places 
where the order affects the sense, or the authority of a word, 
or where the best manuscripts agree in a different order 
from the received ; — also, unusual forms of words which 
forms frequently occur in the most ancient manuscripts ; — 
the article ; — the participles \ty<a V and diroKpidUs ; — and very 
many words, which are often commuted in manuscripts. 
In these cases he has omitted the various readings, unless 
they occurred in very many manuscripts, or in some of the 
more valuable, or else certain causes existed for remarking 
a difference of reading, which would otherwise be of no 
moment. Some readings, which are found very often, are 
only noticed at their first occurrence. 

IV. Although the author did not intend his work to su- 
persede the use of former editions, which ought to be con- 
sulted by those who apply themselves to criticism or wish 
thoroughly to investigate the authority and true reading of 
a text ; yet he did expect it to supply in some measure 
the want of them. 

V. Lastly : it was not so much his object to augment 
and correct the collection of readings made by his prede- 
cessors, as to make a proper use of them. 

SECTION III. 

In this section Griesbach presents a view of the more 
important critical observations and rules by which he was 
governed. 

In examining various readings the internal goodness is 
to be regarded as well as the weight and consent of testi- 
21 



246 NOTES. 

mony. Internal goodness is determined by the fact, that a 
particular reading suits the manner, style, scope, and other 
circumstances of the author ; or by this, that it can be shown 
to be probable, that all others have sprung from it In apply- 
ing this latter criterion, we must keep in mind the general 
causes which lead transcribers into error, and also the parti- 
cular causes which affect transcribers of the New Testa- 
ment, and especially that arising from the difference of its 
style from that of classic Greek. From that canon of cri- 
ticism which prefers the reading which will account for the 
origin of the others with the greatest facility, the following 
rules, among others, are deduced. 

1. A shorter reading is preferable to a longer and more 
verbose, unless destitute of ancient and weighty authority. 
The reason is, that transcribers have always been more dis- 
posed to add to the text than to omit what belongs to it, and 
it is more likely that incidental circumstances should give 
rise to additions than to omissions. He goes on to show 
particularly in what cases either is to be preferred.* 

2. The more difficult and obscure reading is superior to 
one extremely plain. f 

* Those readings which are evidently glosses on the text, although 
they are afterwards mentioned by Griesbach, very properly come 
under this rule. Comp. John iii. 6, where, after the words aap^ eort, 
one Greek manuscript, a prima manu, and some other authorities 
add, on Ik Tns <rapi<ds eyevvndr) ; and after nvevixa tan, the words on Ik 
tov irvevnaros eanv. In Eph. i. 6, after riyanrinevu), the Clermont manu- 
script a prima manu, and three others written in uncial letters, with 
several of the versions and fathers, read vioi avrov. In Col. ii. 11, 
Toiv apapTitiv is wanting in ABCD (the last a prima manu,) and three 
other manuscripts in uncial characters, besides most of the ancient 
versions and fathers ; and it seems to be an addition to the text, 
introduced in order to explain tov awparos Tfjs crapxds. So also in 
2 Peter, i. 10, after ajrovSaaare, several manuscripts and versions read, 
'iva Sia tcjv kclXmv (fycov) epyuv /3e0a(av v^v ri]v tcXrjciv Kal eicXoyriv izolrioOe, 
and in Gal. v. 8, a few introduce deov as explanatory of kclXovvtos. It 
is unnecessary to multiply instances of this kind, which are of very 
frequent occurrence. 

t Thus, for instance, in John vii. 8, he considers 6vk dvaffaivw as 
preferable to ovnw, although this is the reading of some manuscripts 



NOTES. 247 

3. The harsher reading that for instance which is ellip- 
tical, or which contains a Hebraism or a solecism, is pre- 
ferable to the smoother.* 

4. The less usual to the more common. 

5. The less emphatic phraseology to the contrary, un- 
less the context and design of the writer require empha- 
sis.f 

6. That reading is to be preferred, which conveys a 
sense seeming at first incorrect, but upon careful exami- 
nation proved to be true.J 

7. Readings which may be traced to an inclination of 
transcribers to introduce terminations which they had just 
written or were about to write, are of no authority ; nor 
those which arise from connected words beginning with 
the same syllable or letter. 

and many versions. Upon the same principle, dvruv in Luke ii. 22, 
is better than avrSv or dwrijs, for both of which authority may be 
adduced. But it is necessary to guard against an extravagant 
application of this rule, as a reading is certainly not to be suspected 
because it is easy. In Matt. xix. 17, the received text has, ri ps \eyeis 
dyadov ; ovdeh d%aQ6s, et /if) lis, 6 deog. This reading is probably the 
best, while that admitted by Griesbach is hardly intelligible, ri jie 
epcoras irepl rti dyadov; hg toriv b dyados. Besides, this reading looks 
very like a gloss, written on the margin by some early transcriber, 
in whose copy the dyaOi of v. 16, (the authority of which is doubt- 
ful,) had been lost. 

* The harsher reading eo-kvXiaevoi in Matt. ix. 36, is to be preferred 
to the smoother eK\s\vn£voi. The same passage may be adduced to 
illustrate the next rule. 

t Comp. Gal. vi. 15, where kaAv is probably the genuine reading, 
in place of which the more emphatic la^oEi has been introduced. 

X This rule is illustrated by John i. 28, where Brjdavia, the true 
reading has been displaced in many manuscripts, versions and 
fathers, to make room for Brida/3apa. This has arisen from sup- 
posing that Bethany cannot be the place meant, because it was near 
Jerusalem ; as if there could not be two or more towns of the same 
name. Comp. Michaelis, Part I, Chap. x. Sect. iii. V< 1. II. pp. 
399. ss. It is probable, that the difference between the Hebrew text 
of Exod. xii. 40, and the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
the Septuagint, may be accounted for on the same principle. A 
supposed difficulty seems to have given rise to the latter. 



24S 



NOTES. 



8. When several readings occur of the same place, that 
is to be esteemed the best, which may be called the 
medium, from which all the others may be shown to have 
originated. 

9. Those readings are to be rejected which it is admitted 
were introduced into the text from the commentaries of 
fathers or old scholiasts. Although the more modern 
copies chiefly have been injured by interpolations, yet there 
is no manuscript, however ancient, that is entirely free 
from glosses ; and many have flowed from the commenta- 
ries and catenas of the fathers written on the margin. Still 
the rule is to be applied with great caution ; and it is al- 
ways to be recollected, that the agreement of a manuscript 
with scholia will by no means prove it to have been cor- 
rupted by the scholia, as the agreement may have sprung 
from other causes. 

10. Those readings which have arisen in lectionaries, 
and add or remove or alter a passage, whether to introduce 
the lesson or to diminish difficulties, are to be rejected. 
But here the same caution must be exercised as in the for- 
mer rule. 

11. Lastly : those are to be condemned which have 
found their way into Greek copies from the Latin version. 
This rule, which is very sound and correct, has been greatly 
abused by some learned men, who, whenever they disco- 
vered a reading differing from that of the common mass 
of books and agreeing with the Latin version, immediately 
inferred that the manuscript containing it latinized. But 
to prove such interpolation, other marks are necessary be- 
side mere consent. 

After giving these rules, with two or three others, which 
are here passed over, to ascertain the internal goodness 
of a reading, Griesbach examines on what the authority 



NOTES. 



249 



of testimonies is supported. There must be weight and 

CONSENT. 

The weight of testimony is determined partly by age, 
and partly by other favorable circumstances. The age is 
not to be inferred simply or principally from that of the 
parchments. It is the antiquity of the text, and not of the 
transcriber, which is important ; and this is ascertained by its 
frequent agreement with other witnesses, particularly ver- 
sions and fathers whose age is well known. There are manu- 
scripts, the text of which is composed sometimes of ancient 
and sometimes of more modern readings, and it is necessary 
to examine them with caution, and not to infer the high an- 
tiquity of their text from a few readings. Further, a manu- 
script may be of great antiquity and excellence, and yet in cer- 
tain places it maybe corrupted by lectionaries or by the Latin 
version ; still, in those parts where there is no reason to suspect 
any corruption, it may have great weight. Although the learn- 
ing and ability of a transcriber, and the fact of his having 
used a good and ancient copy, are circumstances which 
ought to carry with them great authority; yet it is evidently 
necessary to apply them with no small care. It is the cha- 
racter of the copy alone which generally assists in deter- 
mining the question, from what manuscript it was trans- 
cribed ; then again, the manuscript, although old, may have 
been corrupted, and where it is so the transcriber's fidelity 
is of no importance. — The errors of a transcriber are readi- 
ly distinguishable from the original readings, by separating 
those peculiar to the manuscript from others which it has 
in common with many manuscripts. 

With respect to the consent of testimonies, it is import- 
ant to remark, that this must not be identified with the ex- 
hibition of the same reading by a great number ; it is ne- 
cessary that they be really different witnesses. There are 
21* 



250 



NOTES. 



above a hundred manuscripts of the gospels, which, being 
derived from one source, agree in almost every sylla- 
ble, with the exception of such readings as are caused by 
errors of copyists, and others arising from peculiar causes. 
Hence then the necessity of distributing testimonies into 
classes. 

The author informs us in his preface, that his plan of 
distinguishing from each other the different recensions of 
the Greek text, which from the commencement of the third 
century at least have existed, — of separating as far as pos- 
sible the primitive readings of each recension from later in- 
terpolations, — of distributing manuscripts, versions and fa- 
thers into different classes according to the difference of 
the recension which each one followed, — of reckoning all 
the witnesses of one class, whether many or few, as one wit- 
ness only, — and of attributing to each recension its legiti- 
mate importance, — was suggested by Bengel and com- 
menced by Semler. In his Prolegomena he proceeds as 
follows. 

Recensions of the text of the New Testament exist, as 
also of many Latin and Greek works. The want of proper 
records makes it impossible to trace the history of these re- 
censions. A comparison of Origen with Tertullian and 
Cyprian proves, that at least in the beginning of the third 
century there were two. That which after Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen, the Alexandrians used, may be 
called the Alexandrine ; the other, which from the time 
of Tertullian was made use of in Africa, Italy, Gaul, and 
other occidental countries, the western, although its use 
was not confined to the western part of the empire. From 
each of these recensions, in the gospels, (to which the 
author confines his remarks,) differs the text of A, which 
agrees sometimes with the Alexandrine recension, some- 



NOTES. 251 

times with the Western, sometimes with both together, 
but very often varies from both, and approximates some- 
what nearer the received text. With this manuscript 
others are kindred, that are marked E F G H S, which 
however have very many modern readings and are also 
much more closely allied to the received text. All these, 
(A E F G H S,) seem to agree in the gospels, so far as 
imperfect collations enable us to ascertain, with the fathers 
of the latter part of the fourth century, and of the fifth and 
sixth centuries in Greece, Asia Minor and that vicinity : 
this may be called the Constantinopolitan recension, 
because it was most generally used in that patriarchate, and 
there widely disseminated by means of numberless copies. 
From it came the Slavonic version. The Syriac version, as 
we have it in printed editions, is not like any of these recen- 
sions ; but neither is it altogether unlike any. In many of 
its readings it agrees with the Alexandrine, in more with 
the Western, and in some with the Constantinopolitan, yet 
at the same time it rejects most of those which found their 
way into this recension in later ages. It seems therefore 
to have been at different periods again and again revised, 
according to Greek manuscripts evidently different. 

In addition to manuscripts which exhibit one of these 
ancient recensions, some contain a text compiled from the 
readings of two or three. This is probably the case also 
with the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, and Jerusalem-Syri- 
ac versions. 

That the observations already made may be the more 
useful in assisting the reader to form an estimate of read- 
ings either belonging to one recension or common to more, 
the author lays down a few premonitions. 

1. It is necessary for a critic to be well acquainted with 
the characteristics of a recension, with whatever makes it 



252 NOTES. 

more or less valuable. The Alexandrine acts the gramma- 
rian ; the Western the expositor, and, by no means unfre- 
quently without success. 

2. No recension is to be found unaltered, in any manu- 
script now extant. The causes of this are briefly but clearly 
stated. Yet errors in one manuscript are not to be ascri- 
bed to the whole recension. 

3. It is of very great importance to discover the primi- 
tive reading of each recension. This is to be done by com- 
paring all the manuscripts, fathers and versions of the 
same recension, and by selecting from among their read- 
ings that which is most strongly recommended, both by tes- 
timonies of higher antiquity and by internal marks of good- 
ness. 

4. Before the genuineness of one reading among many 
can be determined, we must examine to what recension 
any one is to be referred. The inquiry is not, — how many 
manuscripts now existing agree in any reading ; but, — 
what ancient recensions originally exhibited that reading : 
for all the testimonies of the same recension are to be re- 
garded as one, and therefore two or three manuscripts may 
be of as much weight as a hundred others, because some 
recensions are preserved in a few only, others in a great num- 
ber. Greek manuscripts were but seldom written in the 
Western provinces after the fourth century, and in Egypt 
after the sixth ; but in the patriarchate of Constantinople, 
the Greek monks were indefatigable in multiplying copies 
of the New Testament until the fifteenth. 

5. If all the old recensions originally agreed in any 
reading, it is undoubtedly the true one, even if afterwards 
another should have been introduced into a multitude of 
more modern manuscripts. 

6. If all the recensions did not originally agree in the 



NOTES. 253 

same reading, that which has the support of the most 
ancient is the best, unless there be special circumstan- 
ces to the contrary arising from the character of the re- 
cension. 

7. From the consent of the Alexandrine recension with 
the Western, is it concluded on very good grounds, that a 
reading common to both is by far the most ancient, and in- 
deed, if supported by its internal goodness, genuine. If it 
be destitute of this goodness, the want must be balanced 
against the consent of the two recensions. 

8. If the Alexandrine agrees with the Constantinopoli- 
tan, while the Western differs from both, we are to exam- 
ine whether the reading which has the sanction of the 
Western be of a class in which the errors of this last re- 
cension are frequent, and at the same time the internal 
marks of truth or error must be carefully considered. 

9. In the same way must we judge of readings in which 
the Western recension agrees with the Constantinopolitan 
against the Alexandrine. 

10. If any recension exhibit a reading varying from 
those of the others, it is not the number of individual wit- 
nesses, but the internal marks of goodness, on which the 
preference must be founded. No matter how few the wit- 
nesses, provided it. can be shown, that the reading was one 
in which all the old recensions originally agreed, and there 
be no special circumstances, arising from the character of 
the recensions, to weigh against it. 

It is to be remarked further, that the Alexandrine manu- 
script follows one recension in the Gospels, another in St. 
Paul's epistles, and a third in the Acts and Catholic epis- 
tles. — The Vatican, in the former part of St. Matthew, 
agrees with the Western ; in the last chapters and in the 
three other Evangelists, with the Alexandrine. — In forming 



254 NOTES. 

an opinion on the consent of testimonies, the critic should 
carefully attend to mixed manuscripts of this kind. 

SECTION IV. 

This section explains the author's mode of arranging 
his work, and the critical marks with which the text is pro- 
vided. 

1. The received text is made the basis. 

2. Whatever alterations have been made are scrupu- 
lously indicated. 

3. Every word and syllable of the received text is print- 
ed, and in one uniform character. Whatever alterations 
are suggested, are pointed out by marks affixed to the re- 
ceived text. If the received reading has been stricken 
out of the text, it is printed in the inner margin in 
the same type as the text in general. — The inner margin 
is the space between the text and the body of readings 
with the authority for each, and is included within two 
lines. 

4. Whatever is substituted for the received reading, 
whether it be admitted into the text or introduced into the 
inner margin, is printed in smaller type. 

5. Nothing is altered on conjecture, nothing without 
the authority of witnesses, namely, manuscripts, versions, 
fathers. 

6. As some readings varying from the received are un- 
doubtedly to be regarded as genuine, others, although not 
certainly genuine, yet as equal to the received or nearly so, 
and others, although less probable, yet worthy of considera- 
tion ; these different grades of probability are distinctly in- 
dicated. 

(1) Those that in the author's judgment are most cer- 
tainly spurious, are omitted in the text and placed in the 



NOTES. 255 

inner margin, this mark t being substituted in the former, 
and in the latter prefixed to the displaced words. 

(2) Such as ought probably to be stricken out, yet not 
certainly, are retained in the text with this mark = pre- 
fixed.* 

(3) If the authority for striking out is less sufficient 
than in the former case, the reading, which ought perhaps 
to be removed, is retained in the text with the mark — . 

7. Those readings which seem to have been improperly 
omitted in the received text are inserted, but in smaller 
type, with the mark 4fc or ^ or + prefixed, of which the 
first intimates the greatest degree of probability, the second 
a less, and the third the least. 

8. With respect to those emendations of the sacred text 
which are produced by commuting one or more words for 
others, the following observations must be attended to. 

(1) A reading undoubtedly genuine, yet different from 
the received, is introduced into the text without any mark, 
but in smaller characters ; and that which has hitherto 
been the received reading is placed, in larger characters 
and without any mark, in the inner margin. 

(2) If in favor of a reading thus removed from the text 

considerable authority can be adduced, yet by no means 

sufficient to determine its genuineness ; to the received 

* The reader will observe the extreme caution of Griesbach not to al- 
ter the received text without reasons most satisfactory to himself. Yet 
I cannot but think, that the principle here stated is not perfectly in unison 
with that laid down in the second Section, I, where he avows it to be 
his object to present "his readers with a text as correct as possible, 
(textum a mendis quantum fieri posset purgatissimum exhibere studui.") 
If the probability is on the side of striking- out certain readings, it seems 
plain, that upon this latter principle they ought to have been stricken 
out. The author has been led to the result expressed above, by making 
the received text his basis; and it is evident that his own text does 
sometimes contain readings which he himself considered as probably 
spurious. Compare also below, No. 8, (3,) from which it appears that 
a reading believed to be inferior to some other, may remain in the text, 
and that which is supposed preferable may appear in smaller characters 
in the inner margin. 



256 NOTES. 

reading, which is placed in the inner margin, the mark CO 
is attached. 

(3) A received reading, to which some other is of equal 
authority, or which, although inferior to some other, is still 
not determined to be spurious, remains in the text with the 
mark ^5 prefixed. The reading which is considered equal 
or preferable to the received, is put in smaller characters 
in the inner margin, accompanied by the same mark. 

(4) When authority of some weight can be urged in 
defence of a reading, which at the same time is decidedly 
inferior to the received, the former is put in the inner mar- 
gin, in smaller characters, with the mark C^ which is also 
prefixed to the received reading retained in the text. 

9. When the text is susceptible of a punctuation worthy 
of notice which varies from the received, it is indicated by 
a *. See Matt. iii. 3. iv. 7, 24. xix. 28. 

10. The lessons read in the Greek church, or the ana- 
gnosmata, are enclosed in brackets. 

The text of Griesbach's New Testament is divided into 
paragraphs and printed in continuous order : the chapters 
are marked at the top, and the verses, (each of which be- 
gins with a capital letter,) on the side. 

SECTION V. 

As the object of this section is merely to show in what 
respects the second edition differs from the first, it is un- 
necessary to give an outline of it. 



SECTION VI. 

Here the author explains the various marks and abbre- 
viations employed in his work, whether in the text, the 
inner margin, or the notes. Several will be found 
already illustrated in Section iv. ; an explanation of a few 



NOTES. 



257 



others of principal importance and frequent occurrence is 
here subjoined. If the reader wishes to see them all in 
one view, let him consult Griesbach himself. 

" This mark indicates the extent to which the immedi- 
ately preceding mark, or small Latin letter referring also 
to the notes, applies. — : This is used when the application 
of the mark is more limited than that of the Latin letter. 
Both may be illustrated by referring to Matt. iii. 12, 
cwa^EL tov atTov e = airov : els tt]v diroOrnvv, " where the force of the 
letter e applies to all the following words, while the = is 
limited to airov. 

The two preceding marks belong to the text, the follow- 
ing to the notes. 

|| This is employed to intimate, that the various read- 
ings to which it is prefixed belong to the same words of the 
text, to which the various reading related which had already 
been noted. 

= This indicates that the words of the text, which are 
comprehended within the Latin letter and the mark ", or 
which the inner margin contains with the mark f prefixed, 
are omitted in the enumerated manuscripts ; and + denotes 
that the words which follow it are added in the manuscripts 
cited. If no Greek word follow, the meaning is, that in 
the manuscripts enumerated after the mark, the reading is 
the same as that introduced in the text in smaller charac- 
ters. 

* This signifies that the manuscript, to the appropriate 
mark of which it is subjoined, contained the reading refer- 
red to a prima manu, but that subsequently it was changed 
into another ; and ** denotes that the reading occurs in the 
manuscript from emendation, or may be found in the 

margin. 

22 



258 NOTES. 

SECTION VII. 

This section contains a list of Greek manuscripts refer- 
red to. I. Those written in uncial characters ; II. those in 
smaller character ; III. Evangelistaria*; IV. manuscripts 
used in preparing St. Matthew's Gospel ; and lastly, a 
list of Sclavonian Manuscripts communicated to him by 
Dobrosky. 



This brief outline of Griesbach's principles and views 
as exhibited iu his Prolegomena, is given for the informa- 
tion of the reader who wants time or opportunity to consult 
the original work. It must be evident, that to prepare an 
edition of the Greek Testament under the guidance of 
them, must indeed be a task equal if not superior in diffi- 
culty in that of Adamantius himself. Whatever may be 
said of the result, it is impossible to question the laborious- 
ness of the undertaking. In the one all have acquiesced, 
but not a few have been dissatisfied with the other. 

The first reflection which must strike an examiner of 
the author's system, is the extreme difficulty of determining 
to what recension each manuscript, version, or reading 
taken from the work of any father, does certainly belong. t 

* The Evangelistaria contain the Gospels as read in the daily service 
of the ancient Greek church. 

+ I find that Professor Lee has made the same remark in his Prolego- 
mena to Bagster's Polyglot. Prol. VI. § xi. p. 69. I cannot agree with 
him, however, in considering the whole subject of recensions as an 
ingenious fabrication, devised with the view of involving a matter of no 
great difficulty in utter darkness, and am surprised that he should have 
expressed himself in such unqualified language. " Ingeniosae" (says he,) 
illae familiarum fabricas, uti mihi videtur, in unum tan turn modo finem. 
feliciter exstructae sunt ; ut, scilicet, rem in seipsa haud valde obscuram, 
tenebris iEgyptiacis obscuriorem reddant; editoresque eos, qui se omnia 
rem acu tetigisse putent, supra mortalium labendi statum, nescio quan- 
tum, evehere." The reader is particularly referred to Schulz's edition 
of Griesbach's New Testament, of which some account is given at the 
end of this note, Preface p. xxxii — xxxv. While he gives his opinion 
that the doctrine of different recensions is not to be rejected, he candidly 



NOTES. 



259 



And until this is done, there can be no such classification 
of the testimony as Griesbach has made, and by conse- 
quence no reasoning founded on the evidence afforded by 
any specific number of witnesses. 

Another difficulty of no small magnitude is connected 
with a previous point, viz : that of settling the primitive 
readings in every authority, where so many circumstances, 
both designed and incidental, may have produced and pro- 
pagated diversity. 

A third consideration is perhaps of more importance 
than either of these. Allowing the existence of recensions, 
it may very reasonably be asked, has the number been 
definitely settled ? If there be more than three, as Gries- 
bach himself seems to suppose,* his procedure in determin- 
ing the evidence from the testimony of three only is inad- 
missable. " If we suppose," says Lawrence,t " the exist- 
ence of five or six, but bring only three to a comparison, 

acknowledges that it ought to be more closely limited, and more sparingly 
and cautiously applied, than has been done by Griesbach and his fol- 
lowers, lest it should result in a mere mechanical process. He plainly 
intimates that there never was any authority by which the characteris- 
tics of the Alexandrine, Western and Constantinopolitan recensions 
could be determined, that no manuscript or version uniformly exhibits a 
text in such a clearly defined state as must assign it to some particular 
recension, but on the contrary, even the most ancient show some marks 
of other recensions than those to which they have been assigned ; that 
it is scarcely possible to show, in any respect, a particular character 
appropriate to any of the recensions so called, and in what way any one 
may be distinguished from the rest; that there are no settled grounds 
whereby to determine the number and character of particular readings 
necessary to constitute any new recension ; and that none of the docu- 
ments of the various recensions exhibit those recensions in an unadulte- 
rated condition, but more or less in a state of corruption and confusion. 
While therefore it is right to distribute the various manuscripts and 
versions into classes, on account of their agreement or disagreement in 
a greater or less degree, yet it is necessary to distinguish between vari- 
ous readings of fortuitous origin, and such as have been introduced 
intentionally and with some particular design. Of the former class the 
number undoubtedly does greatly preponderate. 

* See his Curae in Epistolas Paulinas, 1777, and Preface to his edition 
of the Gospels, published the same year, as quoted by Lawrence, ubi 
sup. pp. 18, ss. 

t lb. p. 50. 



260 



NOTES. 



it is manifest that we cannot possibly determine to which 
of the five or six any manuscript properly belongs ; but 
merely that it possesses a closer affinity to one, than to the 
other two, of the three compared." And, on the other 
hand, if the existence of even three should be doubtful, the 
author's conclusions must be in a great measure insecure. 
And that this is doubtful is the opinion of the acute and 
perspicacious writer just quoted. "Instead of establishing 
five or six classes, I confess that I see not good ground 
for the admission of even three. I do not however deny 
that these, or more than these, exist, because their exist- 
ence is possible ; but I contend, that it has not been suffi- 
ciently proved."* 

Dr. Lawrence'sf pamphlet is well worthy of attention 
in reference to this subject. He possesses nothing of that 
castigating and bitter spirit, which shows itself in some 
writers on criticism, whose works may be said to be " plena 
quidem eruditionis, ac non aeque plena humanitatis."f He 
writes with the candor of a scholar and liberal minded man, 
allowing Griesbach the praise of being a modest and un- 
assuming and most able critic, and in the outset vindicating 
his orthodoxy on the subject of the divinity of Christ, by an 
appropriate quotation from his preface to the apostolical 
writings published in 1775, in which he ' publicly professes 
and calls God to witness, that he has no doubt of the truth 
of this doctrine, substantiated as it is by so many and evi- 
dent proofs from scripture.' || It is on good grounds that 

* p. 92. t Now Archbishop of Cashel. 

t This remark is made by Moeus in reference to the controversy 
between Heinsius and Salmasius on the Hellenistic language. Hermen. 
Novi Test. vol. i. p. 223. 

II As it is probable, that neither the publication of Griesbach, nor the 
work of Archbishop Lawrence is accessible to most of my readers, 
and as the avowal is made in very express language, I shall here intro- 
duce it, being indebted to the latter author for the quotation, pp. 3, s. 
" Interim uni tamen dogmati eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera 



NOTES. 261 

this able writer questions the correctness of Griesbach's 
method of estimating the various readings of a manuscript 
by its departure from the received text ; and he has shown, 
that the careful and laborious German critic is to be 
" suspected" not indeed of want of fidelity, but of occa- 
sional " inadvertency." 

Griesbach's scheme is more particularly examined in 
the large work of the Rev. Frederick Nolan before 
referred to. According to this learned writer, Griesbach's 
Western and Alexandrine recensions are, properly speaking, 
the Egyptian and Palestine ; the Constantinopolitan or 
Byzantine is considered as the same by both these authors. 
Nolan treads partly in the steps of Griesbach and partly 
in those of Bengel. In part also he is led by his own 
conjectures, which are plainly destitute of any founda- 
tion. He admits three recensions or " principal classes of 
Greek manuscripts, one of which agrees with the Italic 
translation contained in the Brescia manuscript, another 
with that contained in the Vercelli manuscript, and a third 
with that contained in the Vulgate." Inquiry, &c. p. 61. 
He supposes the Palestine text as amended by Origen, to 
have been corrupted by Eusebius of Caesarea, and published 
by him in this state ; and maintains that the Coptic, Syriac, 
Ethiopic and some other versions, were also corrupted from 
the text of Eusebius, and therefore are of little or no au- 

Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri posset non- 
nullis. Quare ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, amo- 
liar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam prasripiam, primum 
publice, prqftteor atque Deum testor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dog- 
matis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto tarn multa et luculenta argumenta 
et Scriptures loca. quibus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem 
intelligere vix possem, quomodo, concessa Scripturae sacra? divina auc- 
toritate et admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a 
quoquam vocari possit. In primis locus ille, John i. 1 — 3, tarn perspicu- 
us est atque omnibus exceptionibus major, ut neque interpretum neque 
criticorum audacibus conatibus unquam everti atque veritatis defensori- 
bus eripi possit." 

22* 



262 NOTES. 

thority. See pp. 26, ss. A charge of wilful corruption, 
and in texts which have the strongest and most direct 
bearing on some of the vital doctrines of Christianity, 
(such, for instance, as 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts 
xx. 28. See p. 27.) ought not to be advanced without the 
clearest and most irrefragable proof. But it is altogether 
destitute of support. Indeed its very extravagance is its 
own confutation. For it is not to be supposed that so 
distinguished a man as Eusebius would desire to publish 
a mutilated text ; and it is utterly incredible, that he could 
have done so, without exciting the attention of Christian 
scholars, especially at a period when Arianism began to 
prevail in the church. 

If the reader wishes to see this bold criticism examined 
and refuted, he is referred to the very learned Prolegomena 
to Bagster's Polyglot by Professor Lee, Prol. VI. pp. 66, 
ss. For a fuller account of Mr. Nolan's book, and for 
other theories on the subject of recensions and classifi- 
cations of manuscripts, see Horne's Introduction, Vol. II. 
pp. 104—115. 

A cheap and neat edition of the Greek Testament is 
that of Dr. Knapp. Novum Testamentum Greece. Re- 
cognovit atque insignioris lectionem varietates et argumen- 
torum notationes subjunxit Georgius Christianus Knap- 
pius. Edit. Test. Hal. 1824. This edition takes notice 
of the more remarkable various readings, and gives brief 
outlines of the subjects, at the bottom of the page. It is 
highly praised for the accuracy of its punctuation. It is 
in two vols. 12mo, frequently bound in one. 

In the same year, Dr. Vater published his edition, 
founded on the Greek text of Griesbach and Knapp. It 
is in one large Svo volume of 835 pages, and is a very 
useful work. It contains, besides the Greek text, the prin- 



NOTES. 263 

cipal various readings and their authorities, with exegeti- 
cal notes, which although short are often satisfactory. At 
the end four indexes are added ; the first geographical 
and historical ; and the second of difficult Greek words 
and such as occur but seldom ; the third of critical helps ; 
and the fourth of exegetical. The last contains a list 
of commentators, chiefly German, on each book of the 
New Testament. 

An account of Dr. Schulz's edition of Griesbach's 
New Testament shall bring this long note to a termination. 
I am indebted for it to a learned friend and indefatigable 
scholar, the Rev. William R. Whittingham, A. M., who 
prepared it originally as a paper for the Biblical Litera- 
ture Association. 



Notice of " Novum Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem codicum, 
Versionum, et Patrum recensuit, et Lectionis Varietatem adjecit 
J. J. Griesbachius. — Vol. I. Evangelia complectens. Editionem 
tertiam emendatam et auctam, curavit D. Schulz. 8vo. Berolini. 
1827." 

This is a compact volume, in a style of printing far 
superior to that of the generality of German books. As 
it has been sometime expected, as the very title indicates 
an attempt of no small magnitude, an enlargement and 
improvement of Griesbach's edition, and as it is in reality a 
valuable accession to the stock of Biblical literature, it is 
deserving of some short notice. 

First, as to its history. The author states (Pref. i — iv.) 
that four years before the appearance of this volume, he 
had been solicited to superintend a reimpression of the 
New Testament of Griesbach. He had declined the office, 
and used his endeavors to induce the celebrated Dr. 
Knapp to undertake it, whose smaller critical edition of the 



264 NOTES. 

New Testament, in its several continually improved edi- 
tions, so fully attested his competence. Knapp declined, 
and in his turn pressed it upon Schulz, who had devoted 
many years' attention to the studies necessary to qualify 
him for the task. Upon the death of Dr. Knapp which 
occurred soon after, Schulz at length set seriously about 
the work. He had, however, previously to that event, 
received his friend's advice respecting the manner of con- 
ducting the edition, his opinion on two sheets which were 
printed in 1826 as a specimen, and his approbation of the 
general features of the plan, as exhibited in that specimen. 
Secondly, respecting the plan of the work, it is proper 
to give some account of the measures taken to ensure cor- 
rectness and completeness in the reimpression of Griesbach's 
edition ; the additions made to it, and the improvements on it. 

I. Schulz's first endeavor was to secure any posthumous 
remains of Griesbach himself, that might afford assistance 
in the correction and completion of his work. But his 
search for these was fruitless. His next object was to 
ascertain the correctness of Griesbach's references to 
authorities, by a new examination. With respect to the 
greater part of those relating immediately to manuscripts, 
however, this was impossible. Such as were accessible, 
were recoil ated with great care. The references to print- 
ed works were almost subjected to a re-examination, Schulz 
himself having bestowed much pains upon the collection 
of such works, while the rarer and more expensive were 
accessible to him in the Royal Library at Berlin. 

II. In the enlargement of the work, Schulz has aimed 
at the use, after Griesbach's plans of all the additional 
sources furnished during the thirty years which had elapsed 
since the publication of his last edition. The principal 
materials thus employed by him, are the following. 



NOTES. 265 

1) The fac-simile of the Alexandrine manuscript by 
Woide. 

2) The fac-simile of the Cambridge manuscript by 
Kipling. 

3) Sabatier's edition of the old Latin version, with 
the various readings of several ancient MSS. 

4) Blanchini's Latin MSS. in his Evangeliarium Quad- 
ruplex. 

5) Bentley's collation of the Vatican MS., which in 
many places differs considerably from that made by Birch, 
and which was first published at Oxford in 1799, as an 
Appendix to Woide's New Testament from the Alexandrine 
MS. ; that is, the fac-simile above mentioned. 

6) Barret's fac-simile of the Dublin Rescript MS. of 
the Gospel according to St. Matthew. 

7) The collation of the Codex Cyprius, an uncial MS. 
of the 8th or 9th century, by A. Scholz, the traveller. 

8) Pappelbaum's collation of a Berlin MS. of the 
11th century, containing portions of the gospels. 

9) Birch's collation of some Greek MSS. published in 
his Variantes Lectiones ad textum IV evangeliorum. 

10) A few readings collected from 5 Paris MSS. pre- 
viously uncollated, by A. Scholz. 

11) The Rehdingeran MS. of the ante-Hieronymian 
Latin version of the Gospels; transcribed throughout by 
Schulz himself. 

12) The Gothic version, published by Zahn, in 
1805. 

13) The fragments of the Gothic version published by 
Angelo Mai. 

14) The fragments of the Sahidic version, published 
from Oxford MSS. by Ford, in an appendix to Woide's 
edition of the Alexandrine MS. 



266 NOTES. 

15) The fragments of the Basmurico-Coptic version, 
published by Engelbrecht in 1811. 

16) The MSS. notes of C. B. Michaelis in his copy 
of Kuster's edition of Mill ; principally relating to the read- 
ings of the Syriac, Arabic, Persian and Ethiopic ver- 
sions. 

17) The Gronovian and Meermanian MSS., neither of 
them, however, of any great value, published by Dermont 
at Leyden, in his collectanea critica in Nov. Test, in 1825. 

These several sources of additional critical matter, are, 
as an aggregate, of very considerable value, and their care- 
ful use by Schulz must tend in no small degree to enhance 
the value of this new edition. 

While bestowing sedulous attention upon this reimpres- 
sion of the work of Griesbach, Schulz undertook also, with 
a view to its improvement, continually to consult all the 
principal editions both ancient and modern; especially 
those of Stephens, Wetstein, Mill, Bengel, Birch, both of 
Matthaei's, that of Knapp, and both of Griesbach's, all which 
he declares were always open before him. 

The result of this collation was the discovery of fre- 
quent errors in Griesbach's references or citations, which 
have been carefully corrected. Occasionally Schulz has 
been led to doubt the correctness of Griesbach's decisions, 
and to adopt opinions different from those of his author. 
In all such cases, the original readings of Griesbach have 
been retained, with the addition of such as Schulz would 
prefer; and his reasons for the preference are given in notes 
in double brackets. All the additions from the supplemen- 
tary critical apparatus used by Schulz, and all the additions 
which he has thought proper to make from the sources par- 
tially used by Griesbach, which are very numerous, are 
similarly distinguished. 



NOTES. 267 

Besides these improvements in the substance of the 
work, others of great importance have been made in its 
externa] form and arrangement. 

Griesbach's text was printed in double columns, while 
the notes, in a type but one degree smaller, extended across 
the page, without any break or other distinction between 
the notes, than that produced by the mark of reference to 
the text. Schulz has printed the text in large type, all 
across the page, without distinction, .in the body of the 
print, of chapters and verses, other than a small blank 
between each verse which begins a capital letter ; the num- 
bers of each being given in the outer margin. The notes 
are printed in double columns, each note commencing a 
separate paragraph. In the text, the most minute attention 
has been paid to its typography, of which the details are 
given by Schulz, Pref. p. viii — xv. — Griesbach's punctua- 
tion has been very much altered, the rule of giving as little 
punctuation as possible, recommended by Knapp and Butt- 
man, having been adhered to. Passages where a difference 
of punctuation would alter the sense have generally been 
left unpointed. The asterisk used by Griesbach to indicate 
possible varieties of punctuation, has been retained, and in 
many places added. The accents and orthography have 
been scrupulously regulated according to the most approved 
modern principles. Names of men and places are com- 
menced with capital letters, a distinction limited by Gries- 
bach to verses. Parentheses are in general more sparingly 
used by Schulz than by Griesbach, (e. g. Mar. v. 28. Luc. 
ii. 2, 4, 23. 35.) although occasionally added by the former 
(Luc. vii. J 4.) The name and chapter of the book at the 
head of the page, are given in Latin, the former of which 
is in Greek in Griesbach's own editions. 

In the critical apparatus, the aim of Schulz has been 



268 NOTES. 

to make the references and citations as clear, and yet as 
brief as possible. 

The references to the fathers have been made more 
explicit and definite, and sometimes the book and chapter 
have been added, thus affording great additional facility to 
one who would verify them for himself, and examine their 
connexion with the context, which is often of no small im- 
portance in determining the degree of authority which they 
may possess. The abbreviated references to MSS autho- 
rities, &c. have been rendered more full, and much more 
uniform. Attention has been paid even to the capital ini- 
tials, &/C, which in references to the versions, is of conside- 
rable importance to prevent the possibility of mistake. 

Schulz has added, with great care, references to the 
places of the Old Testament, parallel to others in the New, 
which parallels have frequently been sources of various 
readings. He occasionally alters Griesbach's arrangement 
of a note. Often he adds an opinion respecting the merits 
of a reading in a very few words, perhaps not more than 
one. The letters of reference to the notes have not been 
changed, the additional notes of Schulz having double let- 
ters. A number of other minor alterations, of a similar 
nature, have been made in the references and citations, and 
are, almost without exception, considerable improvements. 
Numerous abbreviations, generally very judicious, have been 
adopted, for the purpose of saving room. 

With relation to accuracy of typography, this edition is 
deserving of the fullest confidence. All the sheets were 
twice corrected at Berlin, by a competent scholar, with a 
degree of diligence and accuracy much praised by Schulz. 
Two copies of each sheet were then sent by post to the 
editor, one of which he read in every part with the utmost 
care, the other he submitted, for the correction of the 



rn 



NOTES. 269 

text alone, to his philological friends Passau, Schneider, 
and Pinsger, who carefully revised it, with a view princi- 
pally to the correction of the accents and points. — All of 
these corrections were copied into both sheets, one of which 
Schulz retained, for the purpose of correcting the sheets by 
it a second time. After all this care, a sixth reading of the 
sheets after they were printed, has produced 18 pages of 
addenda et corrigenda. 

A full account of all these particulars respecting his 
edition, with a statement of his reasons, occupy 30 pages 
of the preface. 

Pp. xxx — lvi. contain copious and learned remarks on 
the criticism of the text in general, and particularly on 
Griesbach's system of recensions, and his method of cor- 
rection. 

Griesbach's Prolegomena are printed entire with a few 
brief notes, distinguished from those of the author by 
double brackets ; and with some additions to the critical 
apparatus. 

NOTE XXIX. 

The view here given of the very great facility with which 
the Hebrew language may be acquired cannot be admitted. 
An enthusiastic admiration of any thing not unfrequently 
leads its advocates to represent its attainment as the easiest 
matter imaginable. No language can be gained without 
time and labor ; and all attempts to advance the study of 
a language by making its acquisition the work of a few 
days or a few hours, must be injurious, because experience 
proves them to be unfounded. An accurate and funda- 
mental acquaintance with Hebrew is a work of time and 
patient examination ; but it brings with it an ample reward, 
in enabling the interpreter to judge for himself, without 

23 



270 NOTES. 

placing implicit reliance on the judgments of others. An 
ability to analyze a chapter by the aid of a Grammar and Lex- 
icon, may indeed be acquired with moderate study in a few 
months ; and at present, when the facilities for acquiring 
Hebrew are so abundant, no student of theology need be, and 
scarcely any ought to be, without this ability. The reader 
is referred to the Biblical Repository, vol. i. No. ii. pp. 491 
— 530, for a defence of the claims of the Hebrew language 
and literature on the attention of scholars in general, and 
particularly of students of theology. 

note xxx. 

If to this course of preparation, the apocryphal books 
of the Old Testament, and some works in the common 
Greek dialect be added, it will be the more complete in 
itself, and the more advantageous in its results. 

NOTE XXXI. 

It is stated in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 757, 
that " Professor Theile, of Leipzig, announced in April 
1832, that the exegetical part of Wetstein's New Testa- 
ment, and all the remarks of the writers of Observationes 
in N. T., as Alberti, Eisner, Krebs, Kypke, Loesner, 
Munthe, Raphel, &c, were to be arranged together under 
his supervision, and published in one Corpus Observationum 
philologicarum in N. T." — I am unable to say whether this 
work has yet appeared. If executed with proper judgment, 
it would be an important acquisition to the library of any 
student. 

NOTE XXXII. 

I have endeavored to express the author's meaning, 
without confining myself closely to his language. It is 
evident that he speaks of reason uninfluenced by prejudice, 



NOTES. 271 

and in this sense, the correctness of his remark is undenia- 
ble, as truth must make its appeal to this principle. This 
is the foundation of argument. All truths must be agreea- 
ble to pure reason, although many are far removed from 
the grasp of limited reason which man is able to appropriate. 
Whatever truths are rejected by the understanding, are 
rejected from ignorance or prejudice. 

"Unto the word of God," says Hooker, "being in 
respect of that end for which God ordained it, perfect, 
exact, and absolute in itself, we do not add reason as a 
supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessa- 
ry instrument, without which we could not reap by the scrip- 
ture's perfection that fruit and benefit which it yielded." — 
" Because the sentences which are by the Apostles recited 
out of the Psalms, to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
did not prove it, if so be the prophet David meant them of 
himself, this exposition therefore they plainly disprove, and 
show by manifest reason, that of David the words of David 
could not possibly be meant. Exclude the use of natural 
reasoning about the sense of holy scripture, concerning the 
articles of our faith, and then that the scripture doth con- 
cern the articles of our faith who can assure us ? That 
which by right exposition buildeth up Christian faith, being 
misconstrued, breedeth error ; between true and false con- 
struction, the difference reason must show." Ecclesiastical 
Polity, Book iii. § 8. The whole section is particularly 
worthy of the reader's attention. 



NOTE XXXIII, 

This word is used in a technical sense, for literally, as 
indeed the term figurative, which follows, would suggest. 
Comp. Ernesti's Elements of Interpretation, translated by 
Stuart, § 42, p. 21. 



272 



NOTES. 



NOTE XXXIV. 

To prevent the possibility of misapprehending the 
author's meaning, I beg leave to suggest — what however 
can hardly escape the observation of all discerning readers 
— that the rule does not direct the interpreter to allow the 
spirit and mode of thinking of the age to modify or do 
away the evident meaning of a passage, but merely to 
assist him in ascertaining what the meaning is. In con- 
nexion with the subject, it may be proper to add another 
consideration, in itself very evident, and yet not sufficiently 
attended to by some modern commentators. Before the 
interpreter appeals to the spirit and mode of thinking of 
his author's age, in order to illustrate a supposed difficulty, 
let him ascertain with as mueh certainty as the case will 
admit, what that spirit is, lest he apply a principle arising 
out of his imagination rather than one supplied by historic 
evidence. It is said by some commentators, that the narra- 
tive of our Lord's temptation is only a parabolical represen- 
tation of evil and distressing thoughts arising in his mind, 
which he strongly repressed, and thus prevented the natu- 
ral result of such reflections : and this they say is repre- 
sented, agreeably to the Jewish manner, and in the spirit 
of the apostolic age, as if the devil had assaulted him 
with temptations. So again, the account of an appearance 
of an angel to Zacharias, and also to Mary, merely denotes 
the providential agency of God, expressed according to the 
mode of thinking prevalent at that time. Before such 
representations of apparent facts can advance any reasona- 
ble claim to attention, it ought to be shown that such was 
the manner of thinking, and of expressing one's thoughts in 
plain prose composition, among the Jews, when the New 
Testament was written. Any reference to the machinery 
of poetry would be entirely irrelevant. Let the reader 



NOTES. 273 

compare what the author says on the abuse of higher criti- 
cism on page 152. 

note xxxv. 
The author means I suppose, that our Lord and his 
apostles, in common with their nation, used this phrase to 
express the authority and government of the divine Messiah. 
That our Lord attached to it a very different meaning from 
the one in which it was understood by the great body of the 
Jews and the apostles themselves originally, who employed 
the phrase to express their gross idea of a temporal reign, 
is too evident to require any proof. See Robinson's Lexi- 
con from Wahl's Clavis, under fiaotXua, No. 4. 

NOTE XXXVI. 

Illustrations of most of the author's remarks in this 
paragraph will be perceived by an examination of the fol- 
lowing passages. 1 Cor. vi. 26, ss. xi. 10. Acts xxi. 21 
— 26. Luke xvii. 20, 21. xix. 11. 2 Cor. xii. 2, last clause. 
Rev. i. 4., iv. 5. Matt. iii. 9. Rom. ix. 7. Several places 
in our Lord's sermon on the mount. John ix. 2. Matt, 
xxii. 17, 23. Mark vii. 3, 4. Luke xiii. 1, 4. xix. 12. 
Matt. iii. 11. Luke iii. 16. Matt. xxiv. 21, (Comp. Ezek, 
v. 9. Dan. xii. 1. Joel ii. 2.) 28. Luke xxiii. 31. John 
i. 46. iv. 35, 37. In Luke ii. 27, the word " parents" is 
used in accommodation to popular or legal opinion. Nolan 
indeed argues against Griesbach's preferring " father" to 
" Joseph" in v. 33, from its being the language of an Evan- 
gelist, and consequently expressive of his own opinion. 
Therefore, he says, the case is different from John i. 46, 
where the sacred historian merely relates the declaration of 
Philip. He proceeds to say that " from Luke ii. 48 — 50, it 
will appear, that had St. Luke assigned any father to Christ 
but God, it must have been by grossly confounding what 
23* 



274 NOTES. 

our Lord had expressly distinguished." Inquiry into the 
integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 169, Note 135. Comp. 
also p. 475, Note 88. — Yet certainly St. Luke might have 
applied the word " father" to Joseph, as he has the term 
"parents" to Joseph and Mary, without exposing himself 
to any such charge. He merely adopts the current lan- 
guage ; or he may regard Joseph as legal father of Jesus. 
In either view, Nolan's ground is untenable. Other refer- 
ences might easily be added, but they are supposed to be 
unnecessary. 

NOTE XXXVII. 

It would be easy to illustrate the truth of this remark 
by referring merely to certain places in the gospel of St. 
John. An interpreter who presumes it to be the author's 
design to refute the errors of Cerinthus, will very readily dis- 
cover the Gnostic aeons in the former part of the first chap- 
ter. Another who believes that the apostle intended to 
attack the heresy of the Docetae, finds satisfactory evidence 
of this, in the particularity with which the account of our 
Lord's death is detailed, the piercing of his side with a 
spear, and the issuing out of blood and water. If it be 
assumed, that the Evangelist wrote in order to confute the 
notions of John the Baptist's disciples, that their master 
was the true Messiah, clear proof is thought to be afforded 
by several passages. So important is it to form a right 
view of the character and design of a writer. 

The correctness of the three principles laid down in 
the text will be allowed, I presume, by most readers. As 
is the case with respect to all general principles, much care 
is requisite in applying them ; and from the tone and man- 
ner of the author's representations, I cannot but think him 
disposed to carry out the application beyond what the facts 
exhibited in the scriptures require. 



NOTES. 275 

NOTE XXXVIII. 

In the preceding remarks, the author has expressed 
himself in general and unqualified language. It cannot be 
denied, that the same principles must govern the interpreter 
of scripture, as are used in explaining other writings. And 
yet, the peculiar character of certain portions of scripture 
is such, as to allow, and very reasonably too, an interpreta- 
tion, which could not with certainty be elicited, without 
conceding such a view of their character as cannot be pre- 
tended to apply to that of any other writings extant. I refer 
to whatever portions of the Old Testament are really typical 
of events connected with the New Dispensation ; and also 
to those portions of the prophecies, which, while they declare 
truths and facts in immediate connexion with that religious 
system under which the authors lived, do also announce 
other truths and facts of a subsequent age, and identified 
with doctrines and realities belonging to the Gospel. This 
is not the place to discuss the whole subject connected with 
this remark, but the scriptural fact on which it is founded 
constitutes a striking difference between some portions of 
scripture and ordinary writings. In such cases therefore, 
the allowed principles by which writings in general are 
explained, are not of themselves sufficient. The comment 
in the New Testament, which can in no case be proved to 
be incorrect, must be regarded by the Christian expositor in 
the light of a principle beyond the ordinary principles of 
interpretation, and must become an additional aid to him in 
eliciting the true meaning. Comp. Ps. viii. with Heb. ii. 
6—9. 

NOTE XXXIX. 

After some deliberation, I have concluded to omit a few 
passages in some of the following paragraphs, and in others 
to modify in some degree the author's language, inasmuch 



276 



NOTES. 



as it is unnecessarily strong, even admitting the correctness 
of his views respecting accommodation. In reference to 
this subject, I beg leave to direct the reader's attention to 
Note xli ; at the same time requesting him to keep in 
mind the limitations suggested by the author himself. 

NOTE XL. 

This is certainly one of the most important considerations 
in reference to the explanation of such moral and religious 
writings as those in the Bible, which can be addressed to 
the understanding and conscience of an interpreter. The 
highest degree of moral purity, and the most extensive and 
truest views of divine truth which can now be attained, in- 
asmuch as they bring the interpreter nearest to the enlight- 
ened and holy character of his author, place him in the best 
possible situation (caeteris paribus,) to understand him. 
He can then enter more deeply into the feeling and spirit of 
the sacred writer, especially in relation to religious affections 
and hopes, which belong in different degrees to different 
grades of the Christian life. The minister of the Gospel, 
who is to interpret the holy scriptures to the people, cannot 
have this principle too deeply imprinted on his mind. 
And as a practical principle it should exercise habitual 
influence on his moral and religious habits. 

Indeed, on this same principle of correspondence of 
views with the writer to be explained, it may be added, 
that the more we enter into his feelings and associations, 
whether religious, literary or domestic, the more likely shall 
we be to seize on his real meaning. The reader who enters 
on the study of the prophecies relating to the Messiah with 
a mind stored with the opinions of the ancient Hebrews, 
accustomed to the figures under which they represented 
those opinions, well versed in the language in which they 
expressed them, in the religious and political usages by 



NOTES. 277 

which they illustrated them ; to say all in one word, with 
the feelings and views of a pious and intelligent ancient 
Hebrew, so far as under present circumstances they can be 
gained, will no doubt be best fitted to understand and 
appreciate those sublime instructions. 

NOTE XLI. 

The principle of accommodation, which, in various 
degrees, has exercised an influence on the interpretation of 
scripture from a very early age, has, within the last half 
century, been applied, and especially in Germany, with an 
extravagance that sets common sense and sound criticism 
alike at defiance. A reaction seems to have begun, and 
interpretation on true philosophical and Christian principles, 
which must ever be identified, is gradually making its way 
in the country which is distinguished both for its sound 
philology, and for hypotheses connected with interpretation 
of scripture, the strangeness of which is only equalled by 
their utter want of any reasonable foundation. 

Accommodation is known among writers on interpreta- 
tion under various terms. It is called <™y*ara/?a<n?, conde- 
scensio, demissio, obsequium, &c. The author who em- 
ploys it is said to speak kut 'ontovopiav, or ceconomically ; that 
is to say, he accommodates his course of reasoning or 
remark, by a wise economy or arrangement, to the situation 
and character of those whose immediate benefit is intended. 
In points which have no connexion with religion, the 
scriptures do generally represent the views of the age for 
which they were written ; and there seems to be no reason 
for supposing that the authors, with but few exceptions, 
entertained any other views. In such a collection of 
writings as that of the Old and New Testaments, would it 
not be unreasonable to expect opinions in philosophy and 
science which are based on the system of Newton, and 



278 NOTES. 

which, from what we see of the progressive character of 
human knowledge, it is evident could not have existed in 
the ages of antiquity, except by inspiration? It seems 
unnecessary to illustrate so plain a point. And why may 
we not apply the principle to other topics of the same 
general character ? Why may it not be conceded, that on 
some unimportant matters, such as genealogical records, 
and points of chronology, the inspired writers adopted the 
prevailing opinions, or, at least, would not disturb the minds 
of their readers or call off their thoughts from the all- 
important subject of religious instruction, by correcting 
those opinions. In such cases, neither the religious cha- 
racter of the authors, nor the divine truths which they were 
inspired to teach, can possibly be affected. 

Indeed, a comparison of different passages of scripture 
would seem to prove that such a concession is unavoidable. 
The difficulties of this kind, which have been urged by 
sceptical objectors to Christianity, and not only urged, but 
pressed beyond all reasonable bounds, may indeed, in most 
cases, be triumphantly solved. I do not know that any 
portions of scripture have been supposed to lie more open to 
such attacks, than those in St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
which contain our Lord's genealogy. And yet, to establish 
the objections which have been made to these portions, 
much must be assumed, which the Christian need not grant, 
and the sceptic cannot prove. In one particular indeed, the 
case is of such a kind, that it seems to have a necessary 
bearing on the subject under consideration. 

By comparing Luke iii. 36, with Gen. xi. 12, a discre- 
pancy in the genealogical lists will be discovered. The 
Old Testament writer makes Arphaxad the father of Salah; 
the Evangelist by introducing another name, makes Ar- 
phaxad the grandfather of Salah, the immediate son of 
Cainan. Although the word Cainan is indeed omitted in 



NOTES. 279 

one important manuscript of the New Testament, yet the 
weight of evidence in favor of it is abundantly sufficient to 
determine its genuineness. This point therefore is indis- 
putable. St. Luke agrees with the reading as found in the 
Septuagint translation. Shall we therefore say, that this 
translation is here correct, and that all the other ancient 
versions, and the Hebrew original are wrong ? and this too, 
when we shall be obliged to maintain, according to that 
translation, that Cainan and Salah each lived 130 years be- 
fore the birth of their respective sons, and each 330 after- 
wards ; which is a strange coincidence and quite improbable ? 
Or shall we not rather say, that, in an unimportant point 
which could have no bearing on religion, St. Luke adopts the 
genealogy as it existed in the Septuagint version, which was 
in his time and long after in ordinary use among his 
readers? It is not improbable that the same principle should 
be applied in a few other instances. 

But with regard to matters directly religious, or which 
have a direct bearing on religion, the case is far different. 
The Christian interpreter can admit no accommodation of 
sentiment here. It is true, that in a very few instances, 
there will be, even among conscientious expositors, a differ- 
ence of opinion respecting the application of the principle. 
Candid men with equal reverence for God's holy word, will 
differ in determining the points which have a direct bearing 
on religion, although not in themselves directly religious. 
But this by no means affects the principle itself. It only 
shows, that in some cases it is difficult to apply it, and 
leaves such cases to the varying judgments of different 
honest and devout minds. 

In points of a religious nature, positive accommodation 
to error cannot possibly be allowed, consistently with the 
moral character of the teacher. It may indeed be, that 



280 NOTES. 

even the holiest of inspired teachers may omit to inculcate 
truth, or may leave error without refutation. The cause 
may lie in the party addressed. He may be inadequate to 
comprehend and admit certain truths, and this inadequacy 
may arise merely from want of previous instruction, or from 
prejudices of education, or from obduracy and judicial 
blindness. Or, again, the religious object which the teacher 
wishes to advance, may make it inexpedient, and even 
positively mischievous, to impart some truths, which are of 
the very highest moment. Illustrations of these remarks 
must immediately occur to the attentive and habitual reader 
of the Gospels. Our Lord tells his disciples, that he had 
" many things to say to them, but they could not bear 
them" at that time. John xvi. 12. He frequently urges 
them not to make public his character as Messiah. On 
one occasion he refuses to tell on what authority he acted. 
Matt. xxi. 27. On another he limits his instruction to the 
simple point of Jonah the prophet being a sign to the Jews, 
without informing his hearers, as he had done at a former 
time, wherein the similarity of the cases consisted. Comp. 
Matt. xvi. 4, with xii. 39, 40. — It is not required in a 
religious or inspired teacher, nor indeed would it be prudent 
or right, to shock the prejudices of his uninformed hearers, 
by inculcating truths which they are unprepared to receive. 
If he would reap a harvest, he must prepare the ground, 
before he attempts to sow the seed. Neither is it required 
of such an one to persist in inculcating religious instruction, 
after such evidence of its rejection as is sufficient to prove 
incurable obstinacy. Now it must be granted, that in most 
of these cases there is accommodation. The teacher omits 
either altogether or in part certain religious truths, and per- 
haps, truths of great importance, in accommodation to the 
incompetency and weakness of those whom he has to instruct. 



NOTES. 281 

Sometimes also there may be accommodation in the 
form in which religious truth is conveyed. This may be 
one reason for adopting the mode of instruction by parable, 
in order the more effectually to insinuate religious truth, 
when direct address would be inexpedient and perhaps 
hurtful. For the same reason does St. Paul adapt his 
language to the various classes of persons to whom he is 
writing. The figures and illustrations which he chooses in 
one epistle, are different from those which pervade another ; 
and indeed even in the same letter, he judiciously varies his 
forms, as he has occasion to address different parties. The 
principle may be applied to explain the discrepancy which 
has been alleged, but not proved, to exist, between the same 
apostle and St. James on the subject of justification. Each 
teacher modifies the form and language of his instruction so 
as to meet the particular errors of the persons, whose religious 
improvement he was desirous of advancing. It applies also 
to several of the prophecies of the Old Testament. The 
form in which they are conveyed is adapted to the views of 
those for whom they were first intended, or indeed it may 
be that which is most in unison with the prophet's own feel- 
ings. Hence, re-establishment in the promised land, and 
peaceful enjoyment of rest and happiness after the subjuga- 
tion of enemies, is the form in which the spiritual blessings 
of the Gospel are often represented. The one becomes a 
figure to illustrate the other. The same principle explains 
the use of symbols as means of communicating divine truth. 

The form of instruction may sometimes modify the rea- 
sonings of a divine teacher. He may argue from the opinion 
of his hearers. This, I conceive, is the case in the instance 
cited by the author from Matt. xii. 27. " If I by Beelzebub 
cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" 
Our Lord cannot possibly refer to his own disciples, for they 

24 



282 NOTES. 

were of his party, and the calumny vented against him was 
also equally intended for them. He must mean the Phari- 
sees' disciples. Nor can it be admitted, notwithstanding 
the representations made by Josephus and some of the 
fathers, that the Jews, either before or during the life time 
of Christ, were in the habit of casting out demons ; for this 
would be conceding to them a miraculous power. Whether 
a real expulsion did occasionally take place or not, is of little 
consequence, as our Lord's language implies frequency. 
How is it possible then to avoid admitting, that he argues 
with the Pharisees on their own premises and not on the 
real facts of the case, unless we grant the habitual operation 
among the Jews of that age of a divine and miraculous in- 
fluence? And again, in the case of the young man who 
addressed him with the flattering title of " good," is not our 
Lord's appeal founded on the inquirer's ignorance of his 
real character ? See Matt. xix. 16, 17. To a merely 
human teacher, the title, as the young man intended it, was 
inapplicable. 

It appears then, that accommodation may be allow- 
ed in matters which have no connexion with religion, 
and in these too so far as regards the degree and the form 
of instruction. But positive accommodation to religious 
error is not to be found in scripture, neither is it justifiable 
on moral principles. 

The author not only maintains that the apostles accom- 
modated to erroneous views, but also that some of them at 
least did themselves hold such views in common with their 
age. The former point has already been considered and 
limited. What is the evidence alleged to prove the latter ? 
The early history and education of the apostles, their asso- 
ciations before they became connected with Christ, and the 
incorrect views which they maintained after this connexion. 



NOTES. 283 

— The early history of the apostles, and even the erroneous 
opinions which they cherished before our Lord's ascension, 
constitute no proof that erroneous views are to be discovered 
in their writings ; for, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost and subsequently, their minds were 
enlightened, and, agreeably to the promise of Christ, they 
were " guided into all the truth" of his religion. That they 
clung to the expectation of an earthly reign of the Messiah 
after the effusion of the Holy Spirit, cannot be proved, and 
indeed is evidently untrue. That in common with a large 
proportion of their countrymen the apostles had at first im- 
bibed the notion of a temporal Messiah, is quite plain from 
the Gospels, and the error is referred to by St. Paul as one 
which he had formerly indulged. " Though we have known 
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him (in 
this manner) no more." 2 Cor. v. 16. Indeed, it appears 
from the question of the apostles in Actsi. 6, "Wilt thou at 
this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" that subsequently 
to our Lord's resurrection, the same secular feeling predo- 
minated. But that so gross an error, and one so incon- 
sistent with spiritual views of Christ's religion, was retained 
in after life, is a charge which cannot be sustained, and is 
inconsistent with the promise just referred to. It were 
strange indeed, if, in a point of such vital importance as 
this, " their master had given them no particular informa- 
tion." Even our Lord's discourses in the gospels abound 
with instruction on this subject. Should it even be ad- 
mitted that they did not make such impressions during his 
life time as might reasonably have been expected, it would 
still be impossible for any one who believes the scriptures to 
doubt, that the Spirit not only communicated additional 
knowledge to the apostles, but also brought to their remem- 
brance the partly forgotten truths respecting the celestial 



2S4 



NOTES. 



nature of Christ's kingdom, which he had often inculcated. 
See John xiv. 26. xvi. 13. Dr. Planck does indeed restrict 
the application of the principle under review to " things, 
which properly speaking do not belong to religious truths." 
I have already remarked, that in determining the extent of 
this restriction, honest and candid interpreters must be 
allowed to differ. But if the expectation of an earthly reign 
of the Messiah be not a religious error, it will be difficult to 
know how to distinguish it. 

Respecting the other point adduced by the author, 
attachment to Jewish peculiarities and Levitical ceremonies, 
the evidence is equally doubtful. It is true that even after 
the descent of the Spirit, St. Peter does give evidence of 
such attachment. If St. Paul enjoined or practised any of 
the Jewish ceremonies, it was only under peculiar circum- 
stances, which prompted him, like a wise and benevolent 
man, to yield to prejudices, when he could do so inno- 
cently to himself, and with beneficial influence on others. 
Under circumstances of a contrary kind he was warm in 
his opposition. See Gal. v. 2. The same general princi- 
ples and views may be presumed to have been maintained 
by the apostles in general, as no evidence can be adduced 
to the contrary. A suspicion of an opposite kind would 
be derogatory to their character as enlightened teachers of 
Christianity, " guided" by the Spirit of truth. Neither is 
there any scriptural evidence that St. Peter cherished his 
former attachment to Levitical rites, after the instruction 
imparted to him on this subject by the vision of the "great 
sheet." By it God had " showed him that he should not 
call any man common or unclean." Acts x. 28. The 
narrative referred to in Gal. ii. 11 — 14, proves nothing in 
reference to his sentiments ; it only shows that his conduct 
was culpable. And indeed this is the view which the 



NOTES. 285 

author of the epistle takes of it. He says that " Peter was 
to be blamed ;" that " he separated himself from the Gen- 
tiles," not through attachment to the Jewish ritual, but 
" through fear of the Jews," that he "dissembled," along 
with other Jewish converts, and that even " Barnabas 
was carried away with their dissimulation." Here is no 
charge of weak and childish fondness for old prejudices, 
but of conduct " not according to the truth of the Gospel."* 
I cannot therefore acquiesce in the view of the author. 
Nor can I assent to the remark of Mr. Locke in his note 
on Rom. xvi. 25, that " St. Peter would not have incurred 
St. PauFs reproof, if he had been as clear as St. Paul was" 
in the doctrine of " the law of Moses being abolished by 
the death of Christ." 

The author's three limitations do appear sufficient to 
guard the principle of accommodation against abuse if 
properly applied. And it is evident to me, that the first 
and last are both applicable in relation to the cases just 
stated ; and consequently accommodation cannot there be 
allowed. 

NOTE XLII. 

It is not to be denied that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, and other Christian writers of the second 
and third centuries, abound with allegorical interpretations. 
The works also erroneously ascribed by some to Clement of 
Rome, and to the apostle Barnabas, contain specimens of 
allegorical trifling, worthy of the Jewish Cabbala. Antece- 



* Since writing the above, I find that Knapp has given the same 
view of this matter. The reader is referred to an Essay on " the doc- 
trines of Paul and James respecting faith and works, compared with 
the teaching of our Lord, translated from the ' Scripta varii argumenti,' 
by William Thompson," and published in the Biblical Repository, vol. 
iii. pp. 189, ss. and especially p. 219. 

24* 



286 



NOTES. 



dently to our Lord's appearance in the world, the Jews 
were accustomed to this method of exposition. It appears to 
have arisen after the establishment of the synagogue ser- 
vice during the time of the Maccabees, and to have flourish- 
ed principally at Alexandria. Most probably it may be 
traced to the disposition of some Jews to imitate the Greek 
philosophers, who, with Plato at their head, were accus- 
tomed to explain their mythology by the aid of allegory. 
The fact that this method of interpretation did prevail among 
the Jews is proved from the writings of Philo, and from the 
allegorical expositions or Medrashim, still to be found in 
very ancient Jewish books, and quoted by their most dis- 
tinguished commentators. The reader will find many such 
interpretations from the Talmuds, the book called Sohar or 
Zohar,* and the old extensive commentary, entitled Bere- 
shith Rabba, quoted by Schoettgen, in his work on the Mes- 
siah. 

But it by no means follows, that the early Christian 
converts must have fallen into the same method of interpre- 
tation. The language of the author appears to be unguard- 
ed, and his representations not susceptible of proof. He 
seems to presume that extravagant allegorical interpretation 
was universal with the Jews; which need not by any 
means be allowed. Again he presumes that Jewish con- 
verts could have no other system of exposition ; whereas it 
is clear that their reception of Christianity might have im- 
parted simpler and more intelligent views, and in all pro- 
bability this was often the fact. — ' The converts from Hea- 
thenism would naturally receive Jewish principles of inter- 

* This work which is so called from the word trw splendor, is gene- 
rally believed by the Jews to be the production of Rabbi Simeon, the 
son of Jochai, a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, and to have been written about 
the year 120, in a cave, where the author was obliged to conceal himself 
through fear of the emperor Adrian. See Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebraica, 
vol iv. p. 1012, s. 



NOTES. 287 

pretation, inasmuch as they received the Jewish scriptures.' 
But this conclusion by no means follows. Because they 
admitted as divine the books of the Old Testament, must 
it be inferred that they admitted also all the cabbalistical 
puerilities of allegorical triflers? Is it to be taken for 
granted that the great body of Gentile converts adopted, 
with the credulous facility of unthinking and unsuspicious 
children, the mass of insipid and disconnected comments, 
which oral tradition had heaped together, because they re- 
ceived from men who had been Jews " the lively oracles" 
of God ? But how did they " receive the holy scriptures of 
the Hebrews" 1 Not as the author's representation would 
lead us to suppose, from weak Jews incompetent to teach 
them the true meaning of the Bible ; but from inspired 
apostles, or from persons directly or indirectly commission- 
ed by the apostles ; from " faithful men," well taught in 
Christian truth themselves, " and able to teach others also." 
So far then from having been instructed in the silly trifles 
of Jewish allegory, the first converts must have been imbued 
with the plain, simple doctrines of the Old Testament, and 
made acquainted with the facts which it narrates as matters 
of historic truth. 

Now if we examine the very few documents of the ear- 
liest age which are still extant, we shall find that they do 
not support the author in the view that he has taken. Ro- 
senmueller indeed represents the interpretation of the first 
century as characterized by allegory, not excepting the 
writings of the apostles themselves, who explained the Old 
Testament according to the manner of their nation ; popu- 
terium suorum consuetudinem secuti sunt.* His proof is 
drawn principally from the epistle to the Hebrews, the cele- 

* See J. Geoegii Rosenmuelleri Historia Interpretationis in Ec- 
clesia Christiana, Part I. pp. 14. ss. 



288 NOTES. 

brated passage in Galatians, and one or two figurative il- 
lustrations in Corinthians and Ephesians. This might of 
course have been expected from the loose views of inspira- 
tion entertained by him, in common with the neological 
divines of Germany. But even Rosenmueller can find 
scarcely any thing in the writings of the apostolical fathers, 
to prove the general prevalence of allegorical exposition 
among Christians of their age. The letter of Clement of 
Rome to the Corinthians is a beautiful specimen of simpli- 
city and purity, more resembling the inspired epistles of 
the New Testament, than any composition extant. He 
very often alludes to passages in the Old Testament, and 
combines several together. He quotes from it not with 
exact verbal accuracy, but, like the apostles, according to 
the sense of the author. And yet, in this very long letter, 
only one decidedly allegorical interpretation is to be found. 
It occurs in the twelfth chapter, where the scarlet rope 
which Rahab was to fasten from the window of her house 
as a sign to the destroying Hebrews,* is represented as in- 
dicating redemption by the blood of Christ. Surely if Cle- 
ment was devoted to the allegorical system of interpreta- 
tion, his work might reasonably be expected to afford more 
than one solitary illustration. The want of others cannot 
be accounted for by his not commenting on the passages 
quoted. Indeed this very fact affords argument in opposi- 
tion to the charge advanced against him, inasmuch as the 
admirers of that system would not fail to exhibit to their 
readers the supposed allegorical instruction afforded by the 
quotations. 

The same remarks might be made in relation to the 
seven epistles of Ignatius. A discussion respecting their 
genuineness would here be out of place. The contrary has 

* Josh. ii. 18. 



NOTES. 289 

never yet been proved, nor have the arguments alleged in 
their defence ever been satisfactorily answered. Bishop 
Pearson's Vindiciae is the store-house, from which modern 
defenders of the smaller epistles of Ignatius have drawn 
their weapons. There are some obscure places in these 
ancient letters, but no allegory. — The epistle of Polycarp 
to the Philippians also contains many quotations from the 
New Testament, but no allegory.* — Whether the Shep- 
herd of Hermas was written in the first or second century 
is somewhat doubtful. It is itself an allegory or a series of 
allegories ; but it is worthy of consideration, that it contains 

NO ALLEGORICAL EXPOSITIONS. 

NOTE XLIII. 

The author refers to the opinions of the early millena- 
ries, that preparatory to the earthly reign of Christ, there 
should be a resurrection of the bodies of the saints, with all 
their ordinary properties and propensities, fitting them for 
the enjoyment of corporeal delights. The reader may see 
proof of this opinion having been entertained in Whitby's 
" Treatise of the true Millenium," chap. i. § iv., at the end 
of his commentary on the New Testament, fol. London, 
1727. 

NOTE XLIV. 

See Ernesti's dissertation,de Origine Interpretation is libro- 
rum sacrorum grammatical auctore,in hisOpusculaphilologi- 
ca Critica, 1776, pp. 288, ss. A translation of it may be found 

*Dr. Frederic Luecke, in his able, though somewhat mystical com- 
mentary on the writings of the Evangelist John, says, (Introduction to 
the first epistle, p. 3) that Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians cannot be 
proved to be spurious, and has never yet been proved to be corrupted. 
From sach a man this attestation ought to be considered as entitled to 
great weight. 



290 



NOTES. 



in Professor Hodge's Biblical Repertory, Vol. III., No. 2, 
pp. 245 — 260. Rosenmueller, in his History of Interpreta- 
tion before referred to, thinks that Ernesti has been as libe- 
ral in his praises of Origen, as others have been in their 
censures. See Pars iii. p. 22, 155. And yet Erasmus 
does not hesitate to say, " plus me docet Christiana? philo- 
sophise unica Origenis pagina, quam decern Augustini." 
This, says Jortin, is " laudari a viro laudato." See his 
remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. ii. p. 112. Lond. 
1805. Some judicious scholars, however, have thought 
such praise extravagant. 

NOTE XLV. 

An account of the early pietistical controversies may be 
found in Mosheim, Cent. xvii. Sect. ii. Part ii. chap. i. 
§ xxvi, ss. Both he and Schroeckh speak in the most ex- 
alted terms of Spener, the reviver of the study of the 
Bible, as a man of learning and piety, lamenting at the 
same time the consequences which resulted from the inju- 
dicious zeal of some of his followers. Among the most 
distinguished of the pietists was Francke, founder of the 
orphan house at Halle, (a man not to be mentioned without 
the highest respect for his assiduous labors, and for his 
faithful dependence on God in pressing difficulties;) and 
Rambach, a most respectable scholar, and pious Christian 
divine. The editor of the lectures of Morus on Herme- 
neutics, A. Eichstaedt, whose views on the subject of in- 
terpretation are directly opposed to those of the pietists, 
and who does not hesitate to say, that they " pressed on 
every letter, hunted out pregnant senses, and trifled with 
emphases," awards no slight praise to Rambach. He not 
only records the judgment of Buddaeus, Wollius, and others, 
that this writer's superiority entirely eclipsed all others of 



NOTES. 291 

this class, but gives his own opinion as follows. " Any 
one who estimates fairly the good and the bad, and makes 
a proper allowance for the period in which Rambach lived, 
will undoubtedly praise the learning of the man, who ac- 
quired more by reading than his censurers listened to; he 
will approve the correctness of his logical precepts ; nor 
will he be surprised, that his compendium acquired such 
authority, as to be very much used in schools, and illustra- 
ted by some learned men in works written expressly for the 
purpose." See his Preface to Mori Hermeneutica, pp. 
xxv, xxvii. 

The remark of Dr. Planck, that "it was a very common 
usage with the Greeks, to employ compound words inter- 
changeably with the simple," is by no means necessarily 
applicable to the word faepinpuoe. The faep is evidently in* 
tensive, and the compound term expresses great elevation, 
agreeably to our own version, " highly exalted ; the same 
as vxpoa, but more emphatic." Robinson's Lexicon, from 
Wahl's Clavis. — So also the faep in forepmcGiiev, Rom. viii. 37, 
which is expressive of the completeness of the conquest, and 
very well rendered by Dr. Bloomfield, "we are triumphant- 
ly victorious." See an article in the Biblical Repository, 
"on the force of the Greek prepositions in compound verbs, 
as employed in the New Testament, by J. A. H. Tittmann, 
translated by the editor." Vol. iii. pp. 45, ss. 

NOTE XLVI. 

If the author had lived to the present time, he would 
have seen his anticipations realized. Indeed, the extrava- 
gant and licentious wildness of some among the late Ger- 
man commentators, is far beyond what he could with any 
reason have expected. 



292 NOTES. 



NOTE XLVII. 

For a notice of other works on Interpretation, and, in 
general, on the whole Bible, or on particular books, the 
reader may consult Horne's Introduction, as referred to in 
Note xii.* Since the publication of Dr. Horne's sixth edi- 
tion, a new translation of Ernesti's Institutio, by the Rev. 
C. H. Terrot, has appeared as the first and second volumes 
of the Biblical Cabinet, published at Edinburgh, in 1832. 

Although I am aware that several of the works men- 
tioned by the author might have been omitted, without any 
injury to this Introduction as a manual for the American 
student; yet I have not felt myself justified in rejecting the 
title of any book, which he thought proper to introduce, in 
order to illustrate the literature of his country, in the de- 
partments under review. Should a more extensive list of 
such works be desired, it may be found in E. F. K. Rosen- 
mueller's Handbuch, or Manual for the Literature of 
Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, and G. B. Winer's 
Handbuch, or Manual of Theological Literature, princi- 
pally of Protestant Germany. 

The reader cannot fail to observe, that the works men- 
tioned by the author are principally those of his own coun- 

* In this work, which is within the reach of students in general, so 
full a notice of English and other publications may be seen, as to make 
it superfluous to insert a list of them here. The learned author furnish- 
es his readers with notices of " general Bibliographical works on the 
editions, literary history, criticism, &c. of the Bible," then with accounts 
of "entire texts and versions of the Bible," both ancient and modern. 
To these he adds works on " Sacred Philology, or the criticism and in- 
terpretation of the scriptures." These comprehend "treatises on the 
canon of scripture and on apocryphal books ; introductions to the study 
of the scriptures ; treatises on the sacred text, its style, idiom, and ver- 
sions ; on the original languages of scripture, and grammars and lexi- 
cons thereof; commentaries and paraphrases: concordances and dic- 
tionaries, common place books, indexes and analyses of the Bible ;" and 
lastly, " treatises on Biblical antiquities, and on other historical circum- 
stances of the Bible." 



NOTES. 293 

trymen, the most prominent of which is Luther's Bible. 
If he should be surprised, that the translator has added 
nothing respecting our own version, and other English works 
of great judgment and learning, he is requested to ascribe 
the omission, not to a want of due regard for their eminent 
merit, but simply for the reason above suggested, and from 
an unwillingness to swell his book into a large volume. 

NOTE XLVIII. 

These Programs were afterwards altered and enlarged 
by their author, and gave rise to his Historia Interpretationis, 
the work referred to in Note xlii. His assertions respecting 
the character of the interpretation of the first century, 
and of the first half of the second, except as applied to the 
epistle ascribed to Barnabas the Apostle, are certainly un- 
founded. 

NOTE XLIX. 

It must be exceedingly gratifying to a candid mind to 
hear a Lutheran divine bear such full and unequivocal testi- 
mony in favor of Calvin. With all the faults of this celebra- 
ted reformer, (and "who can understand his own?") he must 
be allowed to have been a man of extraordinary industry 
and intellect. A divine of the church of England, who, on 
comparison, will not be found inferior in profoundness of 
thought and elevation of character to the greatest and best 
of any age or country, speaks of him as " incomparably the 
wisest man that ever the French church did enjoy, since the 
hour it enjoyed him." Hooker's Preface to his Ecclesias- 
tical Polity, § 2, beginning. A new and cheap edition of Cal- 
vin's Commentary on St. Paul's epistles, including the He- 
brews, was published in three neat and closely printed octavo 
volumes at Halle in 1831, by Professor Tholuck. 
25 



294 NOTES. 



NOTE L. 

Compare the remark made in Note xi., towards the end. 
Among the late works on the whole Bible, the following 
must not be past over. The writings of the Old and New 
Testaments, translated by J. C. W. Augusti and W. M. 
L. de Wette, in 6 vols. 8vo., Heidelberg, 18C9— 1814. 
The work is in German, and comprehends the Apocrypha. 
It is divided into Sections, and in addition to the translation, 
the authors give occasionally, at the foot of the page, other 
versions of difficult passages, which had been differently 
rendered by other critics. — A valuable work for the biblical 
student, is the Latin translation of the Old Testament by 
J. A. Dathe, in 6 vols. Bvo., Halle, 1784-1794. The text, 
in neat and plain Latin, is accompanied by a few short notes 
on difficult places, which in general are clear and instructive. 
It is to be regretted, that on some of the subjects connected 
with the first part of Genesis, the author has adopted an 
interpretation, agreeing for the most part with the views of 
Eichhorn. — Rosenmueller's (Ern. Fred. Cha.) Scholia 
in Vetus Testamentum is well known. The 3d edition, 
so improved by the author that it may be regarded as 
a new work, began to be published at Leipzig in 1821 ; 
it is not yet completed. The volumes that have been pub- 
lished are the following. On the Pentateuch, 3; on Job, 
1 ; on the Psalms, 3 ; on the writings of Solomon, 2 ; 
on Isaiah, 3 ; on Jeremiah, 2 ; on Ezekiel, 2 ; on Daniel, 1 ; 
and on the Minor Prophets, 4.* — A compendium of this work, 
compiled, under the inspection of the author,t is also in 
progress, and several volumes have already been published. 

♦An additional volume on the historical books, is now preparing for 
publication. 

t By J. C. S. Lechkeb. 



NOTES. 295 

The theological views of Rosenmueller are so well known, 
that it must be unnecessary to caution the reader to be on 
his guard against their influence.* — The Commentary of 
Patrick, Lowth, Arnald, and Whitby, on the Old and 
New Testaments, including the Apocrypha, are of estab- 
lished reputation. The reader will find in them a vast fund 
of valuable matter. — Gill's and Dodd's Expositions are par- 
ticularly worthy of his attention. — Poole's Annotations 
upon the Holy Bible, in two volumes folio, is also a valuable 
work, which the English reader may consult with great 
profit. The notes in general are brief, and contain solu- 
tions of the principal difficulties, with replies to objections. 
See Home, pp. 205—208. 

NOTE LI. 

It is entitled : The family expositor, &c. The seventh 
edition with a life of the author by Andrew Kippis, D. D., 
was published at London, 1792, in six volumes, 8vo; and 
lately an edition has appeared in one very large octavo vol- 
ume, 1825. The critical notes are valuable for their learning 
and good sense ; the paraphrase rather enfeebles the text ; 
the practical improvement is excellent. 

NOTE LII. 

This is the same Rosenmueller who wrote the History 
of Interpretation before mentioned in Note xlii, and the 
student who consults his work should keep in view the prin- 
ciples of the author as there intimated. For a fuller ac- 
count of Koppe's publication, see Home, p. 242-3. Hein- 
richs, a very prominent commentator in that work, is to be 
read with caution, especially on the Hebrews. — In 1827, 

♦For a literary notice of the Compendium by Professor Stuart, see 
Biblical Repository, vol. ii. pp. 210, ss. 



296 



NOTES. 



Dr. S. T. Bloomfield published his Recensio Synoptica, 
or critical digest and synoptical arrangement of the most 
important annotations on the New Testament, &c. Lon- 
don, 8 vols. 8vo. Mr. Home, p. 248, gives a particular ac- 
count of this most laborious work. The same learned 
author published last year a new edition of " the Greek 
Testament, with English notes, critical, philological, and 
exegetical, in two vols." 8vo. It is beautifully printed, at 
Cambridge. The text, which is " formed on the basis of 
the last edition of R. Stephens, adopted by Mill," without 
" deviation, except on the most preponderating evidence," 
(Preface, p. x.) occupies the upper part of the page, and 
the notes, in two columns, the lower. This is probably the 
most useful single publication that the student of the New 
Testament can procure. The indefatigable author has ac- 
cumulated a mass of valuable information, of which his 
work contains more than any other similar one of its size. 
From the brevity of its plan, the young interpreter may oc- 
casionally find somewhat of obscurity. To avoid this in all 
cases, when so much matter is condensed, is perhaps im- 
possible ; it would certainly be unreasonable to expect it. 

NOTE LIII. 

This refers to the theory, that Moses composed the 
book of Genesis from previously existing documents, some 
of which were probably written by the earlier patriarchs. 
For an account of this theory, the reader is referred to 
Jahn's Introduction, Part ii. § 16, with the notes. — The 
Rev. George Bush, assistant Professor of Hebrew and Ori- 
ental literature in the New- York University, has published 
in three volumes, 12mo., a work which may be read with 
much profit. It is entitled : Questions on Genesis, Exodus, 
and Leviticus, with Notes. 



NOTES. 297 



NOTE LIV. 

As this work contains some interpretations exceedingly 
forced, and explains allegorically most of the history in the 
first three chapters of Genesis, the reader who examines it 
would do well to read in connexion with it a Dissertation 
on the Fall of Man, by the Rev. George Holden, M. A., 
London, 1823. 

NOTE LV. 

This work, written originally in German, was translated 
into English by Alexander Smith, D. D., and published 
at London, in 1814, in 4 vols. 8vo. See Home, p. 303, 
who suggests that it should be " consulted with great cau- 
tion," as it partakes of the character of many modern Ger- 
man publications. Michaelis is undoubtedly very prone to 
indulge in conjectural criticism. 

NOTE LVI. 

These notes on the Hagiographa are exceedingly useful. 
They are not all by the author to whom they are ascribed 
by Planck. Those on Ruth, Nehemiah, Esther, and Eccle- 
siastes, are by John James Rambach, edited by J. H. 
Michaelis ; those on Chronicles, Ezra, Job, the Psalms, 
and the Song of Solomon, are by the last named writer; 
and those on Proverbs, Lamentations and Daniel, by Chris- 
tian Benedict Michaelis. — De Wette's Introduction to 
the Psalms, translated from his Commentary by J. Torrey, 
Professor of languages in the University of Vermont, may 
be found in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. pp. 445, ss, 

25* 



298 NOTES. 

NOTE LVII. 

In addition to the works on this subject mentioned by 
Home, pp. 185, ss., a treatise written by John Smith, fel- 
low of Queen's College, Cambridge, is worthy of notice. 
It may be found in the 4th volume of Watson's Tracts, 
pp. 297, ss. — Among the latest and most valuable publications 
on this subject, may be mentioned Christologie des Alten 
Testaments und Commentar ueber die Messianischen Weis- 
sagungen der Propheten, Christology of the Old Testament, 
and Commentary on the prophecies relating to the Messiah, 
by Dr. E. W. Henstenberg. The first part of this work, 
in two thin octavo volumes, containing a general introduc- 
tion, prophecies in the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah, with 
discussions connected with the subject, was published at 
Berlin in 1829. It has been translated into English by 
Professor Keith, of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, 
Alexandria, and will very soon be published. The second 
part, containing a Commentary on Zechariah and Daniel's 
seventy weeks, made its appearance in 1832. Between 
the publication of these two parts, the learned author issued 
an able defence of the authenticity of Daniel against the 
objections of Bertholdt and others, and of the integrity of 
Zechariah, in one volume, 8vo., Berlin, 1831. These works 
are among the very best of the late German Theological 
productions. 

NOTE LVIII. 

For a notice of this work, and the discussions it gave 
rise to respecting the genuineness of some of Isaiah's prophe- 
cies, see Jahn's Introduction, Part II. (§ 104, note a) pp. 350, s. 
The latest work on Isaiah is the Commentary of Gesenius, in 
three vols. 8vo., very learned, but, as might be supposed from 
the author's known principles, neological. 



NOTES. 299 

NOTE LIX. 

In addition to the work of Hengstenberg mentioned in 
Note lvii., the following publication is particularly worthy of 
notice. Commentar ueber das Buch Daniel, Commentary 
on the book of Daniel, by H. A. C. Haevernjck. Hamburg, 
1832. This is a learned, orthodox and able Commentary. 
The author is a friend of Hengstenberg, and has recently 
been settled as a Professor in the new Theological School 
at Geneva, Switzerland. He is said to be " a devoted Chris- 
tian, and deeply skilled in the Oriental languages." 

NOTE LX. 

In Home, pp. 113, ss. a full account may be seen of 
Harmonies of the Old and New Testaments, of the four 
Gospels, of parts of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the 
Apostles, with the Apostolic Epistles. Newcome's Har- 
mony of the Gospels, which is probably more used than any 
other, was published at Andover, in 1814, in one vol. 8vo. 
It is "reprinted from the text and select various readings of 
Griesbach." 

NOTE LXI. 

A notice of other works on St. John's Gospel may be 
found in Home, p. 252. In addition to those mentioned by 
him, among the most valuable of which is that of Titt- 
mann, it may be proper to mention here two German works of 
great merit. The one is a Commentary in one vol. 8vo. by 
Dr. Augustus Tholuck, and the other in two vols. 8vo. by 
Dr. Frederic Luecke, Bonn, 1S20, to which are prefixed 
general discussions respecting the Gospel of St. John. The 
author, although occasionally somewhat mystical in his 
views of religion, enters very much into the spirit of the 



300 NOTES. 

Evangelist, and the second volume particularly may be read 
with great profit. This is true also of his Commentary on 
the Epistles of St. John, which is contained in his 3d vol- 
ume, printed in 1825. The work is continued in a Com- 
mentary on the Apocalypse, which I have not yet been able 
to procure. He denies this to have been the production of 
St. John. — The Commentary of Kuinoel on the Gospels and 
Acts in 4 vols. 8vo, is well known. The author has intro- 
duced into his work many German theories, some of which 
he refutes, while he adopts no small proportion. It is very 
useful as a philological commentary, although inferior in 
this respect to a later work on the Gospels, by C. F. A. 
Fritsche. Both of these writers are of the neological 
school. Their commentaries are in Latin. 

NOTE LXII. 

This work of Heinrichs constitutes the 8th volume of 
the Koppian Commentary, and has been already mentioned 
in a previous note. — Among the latest and most useful works 
on the Hebrews, it is proper to mention the commentary of 
Maclean, London, 1819, 2 vols. 8vo., and that of Professor 
Stuart, in 2 vols. 8vo., a second edition of which, in one 
large volume, has recently made its appearance. The 
same author's commentary on the Romans, in one vol. 8vo. 
is also a valuable accession to our stores of biblical litera- 
ture. — The work of Borger on the epistle to the Galatians 
is a learned and judicious commentary. — Storr's interpre- 
tation of the epistles to the Philippiaus, Colossians, and 
Philemon, with historical notices respecting those to the 
Corinthians, and an interpretation of St. James, may be 
found in his Opuscula Academica, in 3 vols. Sro. A short 
essay, by the same author, on the connexion between St. 
Paul's epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians may be found 



NOTES. 301 

in the Commentationes Theologicae, edited by Velthusen, 
Kuinoel, and Ruperti, vol. ii, pp. 394 — 420. Storr's 
works are too highly appreciated to require any recommen- 
dation. — On the first epistle of St. Peter, Professor Stei- 
ger of Geneva, has lately published a volume, which is 
said to be a work of great excellence ; and on the epistle of 
St. Jude, Laurmann's Notae Criticae et Commentarius, Gro- 
ningae, 1818, 8vo., is well worthy of attention. — The Latin 
version of the epistles, by G. S. Jaspis, illustrated with 
brief notes, is also an useful book. 

NOTE LXIII. 

The reader may see a brief abstract of Eichhorn's 
scheme in Home, p. 266, also notices of other works on the 
Apocalypse, pp. 265 — 269. Those of Lowman and Wood- 
house are generally considered as among the most satis- 
factory. 

NOTE LXIV. 

Although a large proportion of the contents of this 
chapter is particularly appropriate to theological students 
who pursue a course of divinity in German Universities ; 
yet the general sentiments which it expresses, and the ex- 
posure of incorrect views and meagre preparation which it 
makes, are equally applicable in our own age and country. 
The reader will very easily accommodate the author's re- 
marks to the state of theological study among ourselves, so 
as to advance his own improvement. 

NOTE LXV. 

The practice mentioned by the author is not even yet 
fallen into disuse. Dwight, in his travels in Germany, 
p. 194, relates " an anecdote illustrative of the eagerness of 



302 NOTES. 

students to write down every thing that the professor utters. 
A young man from Hesse Cassel, who had passed three years 
at the University of Heidelberg, having finished his educa- 
tion, started for home with nearly twenty volumes of notes 
which he had taken at the lectures. On the way, his 
trunk, containing his note book, was cut off from the car- 
riage. In consequence of this robbery, he returned to Hei- 
delberg, and studied three years longer, to provide himself 
with a trunk full of learning." This anecdote, as the tra- 
veller remarks, exhibits the practice in a ludicrous light. 
But as the notes taken " contain not only abstracts of the 
lectures, but a list of all the authorities referred to, with the 
chapters and sections," it is plain that they may' be very 
useful to the students in future life, especially to those who 
cannot conveniently procure many books. Other advanta- 
ges arising from the practice of taking notes will readily 
suggest themselves. 

NOTE LXVI. 

The translator feels that he cannot conclude these 
notes more suitably, than by urging the author's last remark 
on the attention of theological students. For them princi- 
pally this work was undertaken ; and if it shall aid, through 
the blessing of divine Providence, in promoting a funda- 
mental and continued study of the holy scriptures, the in- 
tended object will have been gained, and the labor of the 
writer abundantly compensated. 

It is an admitted principle among Protestants, that all 
revealed knowledge of religion is to be drawn from the 
Bible. " Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it 
should be believed as an article of faith."* How to deter- 

* Article sixth of the Prot. Epis. Church in the United States. 



NOTES* 303 

mine the genuineness of the Bible, and to ascertain its 
meaning, are the two leading topics, to an acquaintance 
with which, the preceding work is intended to introduce 
the reader. A satisfactory interpretation of the Bible must, 
of course, be founded on the original texts ; it must be an 
interpretation, of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and of 
the Greek of the New. The very first condition therefore 
required of him who would become an interpreter, is a 
competent acquaintance with these languages ; that is to 
say, such an acquaintance as shall enable him to read and 
analyse with grammatical correctness. With regard to the 
New Testament this may universally be expected, and is in 
a considerable degree complied with. But with regard to 
the Old, the very contrary is true. And yet it would be 
difficult to give a good reason, why a young man of educa- 
tion should think of beginning to explain the Old Testa- 
ment, without having acquired a knowledge of Hebrew. I 
hazard nothing by remarking, that very few intelligent can- 
didates for the ministry pursue their studies many months 
without regretting that their philological preparation is so 
imperfect. If those who intend to become students of di- 
vinity could be induced to acquire a considerable acquaint- 
ance with Hebrew before commencing their theological 
course, they would prosecute the study of the Bible with 
tenfold satisfaction. They would feel that they were ad- 
vancing towards the desired object on solid ground, if not 
with rapidity, yet with certainty. They would be able to 
appreciate the instructions of a teacher, and would the soon- 
er become prepared to judge themselves respecting their 
correctness, and to form opinions on the various topics con- 
nected with interpretation. Then, instead of paying no 
more attention to Hebrew than is absolutely necessary in 
order to enable a student to meet the unavoidable demands 



304 NOTES. 

of a theological seminary, and after entering on the duties 
of the ministry abandoning it entirely; it would be read du- 
ring the course of instruction with comparative ease, and 
pursued in after life with pleasure. The uninterrupted ap- 
plication of three or four hours a day for six months, direct- 
ed first to the grammar of the language, the forms of the 
words, and especially the paradigms of the verbs, with which 
the learner ought to make himself thoroughly acquainted, 
and then to reading and analysing, would enable a diligent 
student to realize the advantages just mentioned. The fa- 
cility with which so important an end can be attained, ought 
to be regarded as a strong motive on every candidate for the 
ministry to make the effort, unless prevented by considera- 
tions, which impartial and conscientious examination will 
allow him to regard as sufficient to free him from the obli- 
gation. 



THE END. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



Pages. 

Accommodation, Doctrine of. 140—146, 277—282 

Limitations of the principle of. 147—154, 283—285 

Alexandrine Manuscript 50, 218 

Allegorical Interpretation incorrectly charged on some of the 

earliest fathers 287—289 

Biblical Criticism, Literary Helps for the study of. 83—98 

Cambridge Manuscript 219, 220 

Canon, what 20 

Catenae Patrum 94 

Clermont Manuscript 220 

Codex Ottobianus 223 

Ravinus 222 

■ Rescriptus 219 

Commentaries, &c 179—198, 294—301 

Criticism, Sacred, Objects and Necessity of. 39 — 41 

« Sources of. 43, ss 

Divinity, Apologetic 15 — 19 

Exegesis, what 121 

Fathers, Quotations in the 56 — 58 

Grammars, Hebrew and Chaldee 80, 81, 233, 234 

Hebrew, one dialect of a more extensive language 213 — 215 

Usefulness of a knowledge of it 269, 270, 303, 304 

Helps to be used in studying it 36 — 39 

i Method of study 108, 109 

Hellenistic Controversy 65—69 

Hermeneutics, what 121 

History of. 155-170 

Interpretation, Laws of necessary 123, 124 

Source from which they must be drawn 125, 126 

— First Law 128—132 

Second 132—136 

Third 136, 137 

Works on 171—178 

Object which the Student of should propose to 

himself 199—202 

Method of attaining it 203—209 

26 



306 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



Introduction to Theology, what 5—7 

Languages, the utility of studying them 13, 14 

Lectionaria 217 

Lexicons, Hebrew and Greek 80, 227, 231—233 

Manuscripts 48—54, 216—223 

■ Classification and recension of. 52, 53, 250—253 

Monifort Manuscript 221 

New Testament, editions of the 95—97, 262, 263, 296 

Greek of the 24—27 

A particular study of it necessary 28—30 

Helps to be used 31 — 34 

Sources to illustrate 70—74, 213, 227 

Philology, method of studying it 113 — 119 

Old Testament, sources to illustrate the language of the 75—83 

Philology, Sacred, what 23, 24 

History of. 59—65 

Method of studying it 99—120 

Polyglots 78, 228, ss 

Prolegomena, Analysis of Griesbach's 239 — 258 

Remarks on his system 258—262 

Reason to be appealed to in interpretation 125, 271 

Samaritan Pentateuch 79 

Scripture to be interpreted in the same manner as other books.. 138, 139 

Limitation of this principle 275 

Targums 77 

Theology, what 7, 8 

Division of. 11, 12 

Qualifications necessary for studying 9 — 11 

Preparatory knowledge 12 — 14 

Translations not to be substituted for originals 110 — 112 

Vatican Manuscript 219 

Versions, use of. 54, 55 

Ancient, of the New Testament 90—94 



i CC<X 



C c 



^C r 



\ r <«K 



£S< 



-ST 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
[/ Cranberry Township. PA 16066 

(724)779-2111 



«r*-. 



( r C<r « 



Cc ( 















AC 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




% 



w 



B9 




■ I 



